Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Philip J. Rayment

2009-03-21T14:23:48Z

Philip J. Rayment: Resigned

To find out general information about me, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment my user page] on Wikipedia.
{{userboxtop|Philip J. Rayment}}
{{user Christian}}
{{user straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{user Aussie}}

{{user donut missed}}
{{userboxbottom}}

<div style="background: #AFD; border: 1px solid #AAA; padding: .3em; margin-right:265px; margin-bottom:1em">I became an '''Administrator''' (sysop) on Conservapedia upon being invited to be one early in April 2007. I resigned in March 2009.
<s>Unless indicated otherwise from the context (issuing a warning or instruction, for example), any comments I make on talk pages should be considered to be from me as an editor, not as an Administrator.
Similarly, contributions I make to articles are not sacroscant, and may be improved by other editors.</s></div>

<div style="float:right; width:40%">{{Bible quote|We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.|book=2_Corinthians|chap=10|verses=5|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|A gentle answer turns away wrath,but a harsh word stirs up anger|book=Proverbs|chap=15|verses=1|version=NIV}}
{{Bible quote|Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.|book=1_Peter|chap=3|verses=15|version=NIV}}</div>

__TOC__
{{clear}}

== Useful links ==
{|
! Sub-pages
! Essays, etc.
|rowspan="2"|{{useful links}}
! More useful links
|- valign="top"
|
* [[/Welcome script|Welcome script]]
* [[/contest|1st Contest]] (now finished)
* [[/Article renaming project|Article renaming project]]
* [[/Category deletions|Category deletions]]
* [[/Sandbox|Sandbox]]
* [[/HeaderTest|HeaderTest]]

|
* [[/Creationism|Creationism]]
* [[/Evolution|Evolution]]
* [[/Advice to evolutionists|Advice to evolutionists]]
* [[/Editorial|Editorial]] (written soon after joining here)
* [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia| Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]
* [[/How to debate|How to debate]]
* [[Essay: Freedom of speech| Freedom of speech]]
* [[Essay: The Tree of Life| The Tree of Life]]
|
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table Wikipedia help for tables]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template Wikipedia help for templates]
* [[special:NewPages]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page= User creation log]
* [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|Captcha whitelist]]
|}

== My Contributions ==

I think that the first three lists below are complete, but the other two lists may be missing quite a few entries.

[http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Philip%20J.%20Rayment Detailed breakdown and count.]
<table class="wikitable"><tr valign="top"><td>
=== Started ===

* [[Information]]
* [[Help:Templates|Templates]]
* [[Railway]]
* [[ANZAC Day]]
* [[Help:Editing etiquette|Editing etiquette]]
* [[Mungo Man]]
* [[Pet]]
* [[tram]]
* [[Falsifiability of evolution]]
* [[Twisties]]
* [[help:Creating templates|Creating templates]]
* [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]]
* [[Railway track]]
* [[Electric railway]]
* [[help:Using templates|Using templates]]
* [[List of Prime Ministers of Australia]] (cut and paste from [[Australia]])
* [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]]
* [[Rilpedia]]
* [[Creation and evolution compared]] (empty shell)
* [[Mallard (locomotive)]]
* [[Fence]]
* [[Furphy]]
* [[/Welcome script|Welcome script]] (javascript)
* [[Edmund Barton]]
* [[Alfred Deakin]]
* [[John Watson]]
* [[George Reid]]
* [[Andrew Fisher]]
* [[Classification system]]
* [[Azaria Chamberlain]]
* [[Joseph Cook]]
* [[Double dissolution]]
* [[Sulphur-crested Cockatoo]]
* [[William Hughes]]
* [[Stanley Bruce]]
* [[James Scullin]]
* [[Indian Pacific]]
* [[Salt Shakers]]
* [[Voting in Australia]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
* [[Law of biogenesis]]
* [[Carols by Candlelight]]
* [[English coronation oath]]
* [[Biblical anthropology]]
* [[Public transport]]
* [[Pavlova]]
* [[Safeworking (railway)]]
* [[Horatio Spafford]]
* [[Biblical accuracy]]
* [[Star Trek (original series)]]
* [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek]]
* [[Project Steve]]
</td><td>

=== Templates created ===

* {{tl|UB}}
* {{tl|User 6000YearOldEarth}}
* {{tl|User ComingBigBang}}
* {{tl|useful links}}
* {{tl|TemplateDoc}}
* {{tl|Parms}}
* {{tl|Parm}}
* {{tl|TemplateDocRqd}}
* {{tl|tt}}
* {{tl|t row if}}
* {{tl|country}}
* {{tl|merge from}}
* {{tl|merge advice}}
* {{tl|2if1}}
* {{tl|PM}}
* {{tl|Succession}}
* {{tl|WP no copying}}
* {{tl|Copied from}}
* {{tl|etymology}}
* {{tl|fa}}
* {{tl|Bible}}
* {{tl|Bio header}}
* {{tl|Raw parm doc}}
* {{tl|Bio}}
</td><td>

=== Major rewrites ===

* [[Biblical creation account]]
* [[Date of creation]]
* [[Definitions of evolution‎]]
* [[Great Flood]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Jurassic]]
* [[Ice Age]]
* [[Cretaceous]]
* [[Natural science]]
* [[Perjury]] (all eight words!)
* [[Knuckle sandwich]] (remove vandalism)
* [[Permian]]
* [[Third rail]]
* [[Race]]
* {{tl|Taxonomy}}
* [[School]]
* [[Cubit]]
* [[Oort Cloud]]
* [[Religion]]
* [[Triassic]]
* [[Species]]
* [[Coal]]
* [[Oil]]
* [[Crossword]]
* [[Pleistocene]]
* [[Starlight problem]]
* [[Universe]]
* [[Omnipotence]]
* [[Evolution and creation]]
* [[Vegemite]]
* [[Evidence]]
* [[Carbon dating]]
* [[Fossils]]
* [[Bible history]]
</td><td>

=== Significant editing ===

* [[Adam]]
* [[Australia]]
* [[Creation Week]]
* [[Dinosaur]]
* [[Earth]]
* [[Garden of Eden]]
* [[Genesis]]
* [[Noah's Ark]]
* [[Conservapedia:Userboxes]]
* [[Tyrannosaurus rex]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* {{tl|welcome}}
* [[Election]]
* [[Types of evolution]]
* [[Radiometric dating]]
* [[Velociraptor]]
* [[Creation story]]
* [[Bird]]
* [[Archaeopteryx]]
* [[Pterosaur]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Homology]]
* [[Eyespot]]
* [[Language]]
* [[Fire Fighting]]
* [[Currency]]
* [[Train]]
* [[Natural selection]]
* [[Mutation]]
* [[Pangea]]
* [[Pound]]
* [[Occam's razor]]
* [[Plate tectonics]]
* [[Borland Delphi]]
* [[Pascal programming language]]
* [[Cryogenian]]
* [[Saint Ambrose]]
* [[Morality]]
* [[Quote mining]]
* [[God]]
* [[Star Trek]]
</td><td>

=== Less significant editing ===

* [[Dihydrogen monoxide]]
* [[Haploid chromosome number (n)]]
* [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant?]]
* [[Kangaroo]]
* [[Media bias]]
* [[Theory of evolution]]
* [[Macroevolution]]
* [[Tasmania]]
* [[Olympics]]
* [[Richard Dawkins]]
* [[Alfred Kinsey]]
* [[Dendrochronology]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[Monopoly (board game)]]
* [[Fossil fuel]]
* [[Ben Stein]]
* [[Deoxyribonucleic acid]]
* [[shilling]]
* [[John Howard]]
* [[Transitional form]]
* [[Mass transportation]]
</td></tr></table>

== My Wiki style ==

Here I explain some of my Wiki editing style and why I do what I do. This is my opinion on how it should be done, but there's no right nor wrong here—it's just my opinion.

'''I put space around headings''': I put a space between the equals signs and text at each end of a heading ({{tt|<nowiki>== Heading ==</nowiki>}}, not {{tt|<nowiki>==Heading==</nowiki>}}), and (normally) a blank line above and below a heading. The software produces the same results whether you do this or not, but it helps a little with clarity and that is the way that the software does it if you click the "+" tab at the top of a talk page. Removing the spaces once they are there does not save space, I presume, because any saving in byte size of that article is swamped by the extra record(s) created in the database for that edit.

'''I break up blocks of text''': On article pages, I usually prefer to put every sentence in a separate edit-window paragraph. Ordinary paragraphs without a blank line between them (this doesn't work with paragraphs started with colons, asterisks, or hashes) are run together into the same paragraph by the software anyway, so it makes no difference to the displayed page. But it makes the diffs smaller and simpler (and possibly saves database space?) when editing the page, especially when changing the order of sentences around. And if a paragraph has a lot of references, which are usually at the ends of sentences, it helps a little when reading the source to start new sentences on new lines. I don't specially break break up existing paragraphs written by others, but will sometimes break them up a bit when I'm doing other editing.

== Muddled thinking ==

An anti-creationist comment on a blog, apparently under the self-delusion that this demonstrates something odd about creationist thinking. I think it says more about ''his'' thinking, or lack thereof!
{{QuoteBox|So, creationists claim that fossil evidence does not support evolution, but then they use fossil evidence to support creationism. I needed a good laugh to start off the day.}}

----

Another web-site, despite at times saying complimentary things about me, twisted my comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:School_prayer&diff=399475&oldid=399211 here], wherein I said
{{QuoteBox|You say that school prayer "...would leave out in the cold most Hindus, by implying that there was only one God", but don't explain what is wrong with this. To put it another way, what is wrong with a teacher telling the truth by saying that there is one God?}}
...to be "paraphrased" as me saying...
{{QuoteBox|How could anyone possibly object to people telling Hindus that their beliefs are [deleted]? Obviously my irrational superstitions are correct, and it is imperative that everyone understand this.}}
It would seem that the Really Weird people of that site consider it unacceptable for a Christian to put their views, for fear of offending someone with different views. Yet members of this same web-site obviously have no qualms about rubbishing ''my'' beliefs (and note, not just claiming that I'm incorrect, but in a derogatory way), by name-calling and straight-out insults, such as:
* "PJR is a [deleted] idiot---i've alway said it, and always will. I don't give a flying [deleted] how amiable he is, he's an inflexible dolt." [Despite "always" saying it, this same person thought that I was a good choice for Conservapedia sysop—PJR]
* "nutcase"
* "despicable anti-science zealot"
The hypocrisy is astounding. But then what should you expect from atheists and their kind? Truth and fairness have no foundation in atheistic beliefs (and even Richard Dawkins agrees with that).

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 9

2009-03-21T14:07:22Z

Philip J. Rayment: Create archive

== Kel's substanceless rants about me ==

I posted recently on [[user talk:HelpJazz#Thanks for defending me|HelpJazz' talk page]] that a person named Kels on another website had called both me and Creation Ministries liars. I said there:{{QuoteBox|That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad.}}

Since then, one person has challenged Kels on this (thanks Ajkgordon). And Kels has defended her claims—with more substanceless claims!

She said, "''He accepts CreationOnTheWeb and AiG, who spread repeatedly refuted obvious lies..''", yet ''still'' offers absolutely no evidence of such lies! She also says that I argue "''...against things that are repeatedly cited to him and explained in minute detail.''". Yeah? So what? Am I supposed to just say, "Oh, an evolutionist using typical evolutionist arguments; they must be right and I must be wrong"? Actually, many people repeatedly argue against things that ''I'' cite and explain in minute detail. Does that make those people wrong?

{{QuoteBox|Remember the story of the bee that wasn't able to fly? PJR's like someone who still insists it's impossible after it's been proven to be possible...}}
This is obviously meant as an analogy of my close-mindedness rather than an actual argument that I use, but ironically, that's something that I ''used to'' believe, but no longer do, as can be seen by a recent edit I made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=543122 here]. And as Kels smears leading creationists along with me, I would also point out that Creation Ministries International (and AiG) have long published a list of arguments creationists should not use[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996], which includes arguments that they themselves used to use! The ''facts'' are that CMI, AiG, and I ''are'' all prepared to change our minds when presented with convincing evidence. Meanwhile, I know of no anti-creationist publishing a similar list of arguments that evolutionists should not use. Arguments such as embryos having gills that have been repeatedly refuted are still often trotted out by anti-creationists.

{{QuoteBox|So there you have it, an example of how he's either a liar (by deliberately spreading this falsehood about a spurious and incorrect definition of "information") or an idiot (by uncritically accepting the AiG/CotW version, and they definitely know it's false, so they're liars anyhow).}}
This "example" is nothing more than Kels saying that she is right so therefore I'm wrong, combined with a repeated-but-still-unsupported claim that AiG and CMI (CreationOnTheWeb) are liars. If it's so well established that they are liars, why does she not give ''any'' evidence of them publishing something that they know to be wrong with evidence that they know it to be wrong? No, without evidence, this is just hot air, and contemptible.

{{QuoteBox|So you're saying that AiG are ''not'' liars? That they aren't deliberately peddling this "new information" nonsense, when it's obviously garbage and they've been told so frequently? That they don't have [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp this] sort of thing on their website, that's been refuted countless times? You're telling me that both sites don't spread this sort of misinformation ''that has been publicly refuted many times'', and leave it there even after the refutations, ''because it's good at convincing people who don't know science''? That's lying, and I'm sorry you don't see it.}}
So if ''Kels'' thinks that it's "obviously garbage", then it really must be and therefore AiG have to believe Kels, and therefore they are liars because they continue to publish it. Logic is totally absent from that claim.
Just because an evolutionist tries refuting a creationist argument doesn't mean that the refutation is actually valid, nor that the creationists ''must necessarily'' be convinced by it so that continued use constitutes a ''lie''. I could equally well claim that evolutionist arguments have been refuted by creationists countless times, and therefore evolutionists are liars for continuing to use those arguments! Of course what really matters is the evidence and which one has the better arguments, but that doesn't matter to Kels. The mere fact that evolutionists have tried to refute creationist arguments is absolute proof that creationists are liars! No, Kels, that absolutely does not constitute lying, and I'm sorry that your sad site has so few people willing to call you on that.

For the information of those who have not seen me explain this before, I will not go to that site to argue my case because of a lack of time. I spend too much time on Conservapedia as it is, and too much of that arguing the same points over and over again. In principle I could go there and argue just this point, but once having registered I would probably find myself arguing many other things said about me also, so not registering there makes it easier for me to resist the temptation to refute every false accusation.

But while I'm at it, I might as well try and extract an apology from another person there and see if he keeps his word.
{{QuoteBox|You know, I'd accept [what another poster wrote] if A, he didn't hide behind Conservapedia to claim victory when he's afriad to debate in an uncontrolled environment. B, he didn't use Creationontheweb and AnswersinGensis for EVERY ARGUMENT EVER ...
 
You show me one site, outside of his control where he engages in open debate with someone and I'll happily apologize right now. I still think he's afraid to come over here because he knows that he doesn't have the power to revert and ban any uncomfortable statements.}}
Before I get to A I will respond to B: I only infrequently use AiG, and I don't ''always'' use either CMI or AiG, although I do use CMI a lot. It's also noteworthy that this person chooses to attack the source of my information rather than address the arguments themselves.

I have debated on at least three other discussion forums in the past (none of which I had any position of authority on), two quite extensively, but they were under a pseudonym that I still wish to keep secret, so I can't produce them as evidence. And another person on that site pointed out that I've had a number of e-mail discussions with various people. But apart from those, I can point to discussions I've been involved in [http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/tyrannosaur_morsels/ here] and [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/05/02/refuting-creationism-on-the-conservative-voice/ here], which should satisfy this person's requirements for an apology.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Firstly, you could just go to the ''other website that shall not be named'', rather than using our friend Ken's red telephone method. As charming as his missives are, I think I speak for all when I say we have a deal more respect for you than for him.

: As regards the other things you've said. Well, I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds. One has only to look as far as their [http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith statement of faith] to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe." that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?

: You say that the defenders of evolution use long discredited arguments using embryonic gill slits as an example. The problem with this is that is an example of a long discredited ''creationist'' argument. What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches in common, suggesting a common ancestor. This is just one of many developmental features embryos share in common, something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.

: The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that. You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are. Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them, but otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 18:33, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I explained above why I don't go there to put my case. Did you not read that?
:: "''... I'd heartily dispute this idea that AiG et al. are ready to change their minds.''": Despite me providing evidence of them doing so? Is this a case of ignoring evidence that is contrary to your opinion?
:: "''One has only to look as far as their statement of faith to see this is true. What is it about the bald statement ...that leads you to believe they are ready to accept evidence contrary to their worldview?''": There's several point to make in response to this:
::* Given that the Genesis account is of events that occurred a long time ago and we don't have a time machine to go back and observe what happened, I wonder what possible evidence could indisputably refute that.
::* As the part you quoted says, the Genesis account provides a ''framework'' within which research is done. True, they are not willing to reject the framework, but that doesn't mean that they will never change their minds when there is contrary evidence.
::* Evolutionists ''also'' have a framework that they will not budge on. At root, it is naturalism. No matter what evidence is offered, they will remain naturalistic; they ''will not'' accept the possibility of a supernatural Creator being involved. And they will also not budge on evolution. They may change their minds on some of the details, even major ones (e.g. slow and gradual vs. punctuated equilibrium), just as creationists will, but they will stick with evolution itself, just as creationists will stick with creation itself. So isn't rather hypocritical to accuse just creationists of this?
:: "''What defenders of evolution actually say is that embryos have pharyngeal pouches ...''": No, some will say ''gill slits''. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&diff=543871&oldid=543086 here] for an example.
:: "''...something which simply can't be explained if we are to accept the premise that the world and everything in it was created by fiat.''": Oh? Why not? Why could not the Creator have created different creatures with similar embryonic development features?
:: "''The thing is, nobody can possibly take you seriously when you cite creationist websites as a source. These people have obvious axes to grind, and everything they write is coloured with that.''": Oh? So evolutionists writing about evolution are not colouring their writing with their views, but creationists writing about creation are? That sounds like bigotry to me.
:: "''You merely have to compare the output of so-called Answers Research Journal with a real scholarly publication to see how ridiculous they are.''": Substanceless rhetoric. Can you actually mount a real argument on this?
:: "''Now, if you can find real scientists that are conducting real research who conclude the world was created by fiat 6000 years ago, by all means cite them...''": How about [[Russell Humphreys]][http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3568], Raymond Damadian[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/978/], [[John Baumgardner]][http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527], Geoff Downes[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3488/], Ian Macreadie[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3524], and [[John Hartnett]][http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3530], for examples. Admittedly, two of them are now retired, but they were doing "real research" in recent years and were YECs at the time. The rest still do research in secular institutions. In fact most of the people listed [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983 here] would fulfill your requirements. Now let's see you try and worm out of that, probably by changing your stated requirements. Because there's a good chance that you will refuse to change your mind in the face of the evidence, just as you accuse creationists of doing.
:: "''...otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena.''": Atheism too? And Naturalism (the ''belief'' that nature is all there is, and there is no supernatural?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

=== Part 2 ===

Well, Kels has seen this response, and guess what? There was not even an ''attempt'' to justify the claim of "liar". The nearest that she came was to try and worm out of it by claiming that she was "merely venting". And even this was only after Arizaphale and Ajkgordon had ''three times'' hauled her over the coals over the claims of lying!

Instead, she tried diverting attention by talking about other things. In one case she picked on the list of scientists above, fulfilling a prediction I made (although about Taciturn) that the response would be to change the requirements. Her criticism was that {{QuoteBox|...some of whom do "real research", presumably at "real universities". Damned peculiar not a single one of them seems to have come up with any, you know, ''evidence'' of a young earth during their research.}}
With one exception, all the scientists I listed work or worked for secular organisations. Seeing she apparently couldn't be bothered looking them up (even though I provided links), here's where:
* Russell Humphreys: Was at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) (now retired).
* Raymond Damadian: Has his own company (actually, I don't know if he's still working or not; he's 72 now). But being one of the main developers of magnetic resonance imaging surely counts as "real research", does it not?
* John Baumgardner: Los Alamos National Laboratory (now retired)
* Geoff Downes: CSIRO (Australia).
* Ian Macreadie: CSIRO (Australia).
* John Hartnett: University of Western Australia
So the scare quotes around "real research" and "real universities" is shown to be typical anti-creationist put-down falsehood.

Working as they do for secular universities, they are not likely to get far trying to do research into a recent creation, nor with publishing those ideas. But despite that, it's not true that they haven't come up with evidence of a young Earth during their research. John Baumgardner has been acknowledged (by the secular scientific community) as having the best computer model of tectonic plate movement, and he says that his model works best in a young-Earth framework. John Hartnett's research includes a young-Earth cosmology. So that claim about no evidence of a young Earth from their research is simply false also. But then what do you expect when Kels has obviously done no real research into this? An unresearched claim of "no research" is rather hollow. She claims no evidence by creationists, but supplies none when challenged, instead diverting the discussion onto other criticisms.

The posts by Arizaphale and Ajkgordon are worth repeating, although I'll limit myself to just quoting one, by Ajkgordon.
{{QuoteBox|Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive. While it's an easy claim to make and loved by "anti-creationists (yes, I can see what they're doing by inventing that phrase)", it doesn't help to persuade anyone else that PJR and YEC are wrong. Indeed, in many cases, it may help to achieve the opposite. The most effective way of selling rationality is to argue rationally however frustrating that might be. To the non-scientist and college kids, PJR is beating you at your own game.}}
(Perhaps I should be thanking Kels for making me look good!)

Did I get the apology I wrote about in the section above? Nope. Despite the person who promised to do so posting there again discussing this section of my talk page, there was no mention of the promised apology whatsoever.

Another poster claimed that I would "never accept science", which is utter balderdash. I keep pointing out that science was [[natural science#Beginnings|founded on a biblical basis]]. Even if you don't believe that, why would I do that if I don't accept science? I often quote CMI, who have a number of ''scientists'' on staff. Even if you don't think that they are proper scientists, why would they claim to be if they don't accept science? I keep making a distinction between science and history, claiming that evolution (like creation) is more (claimed) history than science. Why would I bother distancing evolution from science if I didn't accept science? No, this is nothing more than fact-free anti-creationist rhetoric, ironically from people who consider themselves rational!

The rest of that person's post was about as devoid of facts as the claim that I don't accept science.

Yet another person said, "''Also PJR, if you are watching, there are a series of youtube videos called "The 12 Falsehoods of Creationism" that you might enjoy. It rebuts many of your arguments.''": My Internet connection is not fast enough to watch streaming video in real time, but I did have a look at the first one, and one thing that it ''didn't'' do is rebut creationist arguments. It was full of rhetoric, blatant falsehoods, ironically hypocritical claims, and mockery, but no actual rebuttals!

(One of several times that ''my'' irony meter shot up was when I heard the narrator say that "''it's a whole other matter to willfully deceive others into believing things that are definitely not true, like creationism''", against an image from the movie ''Inherit the Wind'', a ''fictionalised'' version of the [[Scopes trial]], with the character representing Bryan in an incoherent tirade in his closing argument, despite Bryan ''not giving'' a closing argument in the real trial!)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

=== Part 3 ===
Well, well, well! Kels has actually retracted her "accusation" (singular, but perhaps that was just a typo) of lying. Thanks, Kels!

She then goes on to address the list of scientists I gave. I've been down this road before, where anti-creationists make sweeping claims about creationists and their science, only to be shown to be wrong, and then start changing the rules. In one particular case, now in one of my user talk page archives on Wikipedia, I was careful to get the question clarified before I replied. When I did reply, I showed them to be wrong (or answered their supposedly unanswerable question) and they slunk away. In this case I thought the question was clear enough that I didn't ask for clarification, so just went ahead and answered. The question had three requirements:
* The people had to be "real" scientists.
* The people had to be doing "real" research.
* The people had to have concluded that the world was created 6,000 years ago.
What was not said, but rereading it now was ''perhaps'' meant, was that they had to come to this conclusion from their "real" research. However, I took it to be a question about whether "real" scientists, defined by doing "real" research (i.e. not just the academic qualification) could possibly believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So I supplied a list of such people.

Kels, by the use of scare quotes, questioned whether they really were "real" scientists, and really did work at "real" universities (although working at a university was never a requirement. She also claimed that none had come up with any evidence of a young Earth during their research.

So I listed who they worked for, to show that they really were "real" scientists doing "real" research. Kels' subsequent comments have not disputed those facts at all, showing that her questioning of their credentials was unwarranted. This is a typical example of false claims made by anti-creationists.

I also pointed out that they would not normally be doing research showing the Earth to be young, nor publishing any such research, whilst working for secular organisations. But that didn't stop her trying to criticise them on those grounds anyway. Yet the criticisms don't amount to much. Her criticism of Humphreys, even if all true (which I have my doubts about, but she provided no specifics), amounts to saying that a scientist doesn't meet the requirements because not all their research turned out to be correct. Isn't this par for the course in science? (By the way Kels, if you want to find out more about John Hartnett, look for him on his university's web-site.) And don't believe what anti-creationist sites tell you about these people: they have an agenda!

However, it does not follow, as she claims, that therefore they do no research into a young Earth. They do; they simply can't publish it in the secular journals, so instead use the peer-reviewed creationist journals.

On a different note, that person who promised to apologise if he saw evidence of me having discussions off Conservapedia has posted again, but has ''still'' not apologised. It seems that the promise was hollow.

And on a totally unrelated note, except that it was posted in the same place, a reply to TomMoore: The discussion seems to have stopped anyway.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

===Just to clarify...===

My disagreement with Kels on her accusations of lying doesn't mean I support YEC, Philip :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:46, 4 November 2008 (EST)
: Don't worry, I'm under no false illusion about that! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

== Palestine ==

If you have the time, could you take a look at the Palestine article for me? I popped in to it via the random page button and thought it looked like it had some liberal bias. I was just looking at the recent changes log, and realized that all of the liberal-sounding stuff are recent editions to the page in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palestine&curid=6412&diff=545847&oldid=433943 this diff. It looks like vandalism that should be reverted, but as I am new here, I figured I would ask someone with more experience. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 22:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
: I'm afraid that I don't know enough about that to do much either. There was at least one edit I saw that I would consider unacceptable, but it's hard to say for the rest. I'm not even sure who here would know much about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:: I would but I'm a bit busy right now. Basically it's a charged issue and some of the things that were originally in the article were probably overboard, but some of the information removed now should not have been. Not everything he says though is out of bounds. On our site the final product will probably tilt towards the original version, but not completely. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: Thanks guys. The current version looks a lot better, and is better than I could have done. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 17:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

== AlanE ==

I had blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Parody_%28Literature%29&oldid=545954 comment]. ''"If the senior people at Cp would actually spend a bit of time at "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia instead of indulging their petty ideologies this sort of thing wouldn't happen."'' is an insult in my book to all the senior editors. It's one thing to point out neglecting one's duties, it's another to insult senior editors' contributions as "petty" and "ideology". If he feels that way, he's probably better off somewhere else. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:14, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

:Generally you would be right, but we try to look beyond immediate statements to the larger picture. For us the overriding question is whether or not the the person is making positive contributions to the project. In the case of AlanE he has a long history of updating articles and so we honor that. He also writes from Australia, and does so at times when most others would rather be sleeping, so he has shown a dedication in that area as well. AlanE once had blocking rights, but left the project for an extended period of time, apparently with a medical condition. Apparently, that condition also sometimes causes him to be in pain. All things considered, we prefer to meet our contributors where they are at and choose encouragement and understanding over blocking where it is possible -- and this is one of those cases. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the support Learn together, and thank you Philip. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::Apologies, then, Alan. I was not aware of your extended history here. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot, your block comment was "''Liberal namecalling: "petty ideologies" of senior editors''", yet I see above that you've not mentioned him calling anybody names, which, of course, is because he didn't. Yes, he did criticise, but criticism in itself is not a valid block reason. And yes, the use of the word "petty" is an insult, but as Learn together has pointed out, AlanE has made considerable contributions over an extended period. No, I don't consider "ideologies" an insult; not only do we all have ideologies, but pretty well every senior editor here concentrates on their ideologies to the exclusion of all else. So apart from the opinionated word "petty", his criticism was essentially correct. How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"? As for his extended history, one only has to look at his contributions list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks again, Philip. I have accepted Foxtrot's apologies on his talk page. (And I will try and curb some of my more sarky comments in future.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:27, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::The "Liberal namecalling" part was only because that was the closest match out of the dropdown menu for blocking offenses. The "liberal" part was not accurate, but the "petty ideologies" part did rub me the wrong way that night, since it seemed to be trivializing many editors' work. I considered such flippant remarks to be closest to "namecalling" since "abusive behavior" is no longer an option and while "other reason" would have been okay, namecalling was close enough, especially once I provided the details. But this is nitpicking. I have stated the reason for the block (and did so in the blocking comments), Learn together even said it would normally be a suitable reason for a block (this was only for a month, remember), and now I have apologized for jumping on a longtime contributor and he has accepted my apology. It seems that the issue is now resolved. As for your question ''How many senior editors can you name who spend much time "doing the chores necessary to maintain it as an encyclopedia"?'', I'm going to stay far away from opening ''that'' can of worms. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:48, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Your censorship of my criticism==
is totally out of order. And why am I not one to speak of respect? I ''shall'' speak of respect, and to whomever I choose, and you are certainly not immune. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: Because you don't show it. It was your comment that was out of order, so I removed it, and you will not reinstate it. Clear? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::Bugler, I've seen you remove talk page comments, as well. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::Including ones with that show no disrespect whatsoever. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::My comment was accurate and well in order, Phil. Who are you to suppose that you are above criticism? You are not the Pope; you are not the Lord High Pooh-Bah, and when you behave badly, as you have been, I will take you to task. How dare you speak to Andy in the way you do? It is absolutely shameful. And your action in having the presumptuousness to censor his talk page - not yours, please take note - is breathtaking in its casual insolence. You are subject to criticism, whether you like it or not, and you might even benefit from it were you to show an iota of humility. Your bullying actions in censoring and threatening me and the tone of your last post here show that your mask is slipping. Clear? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I suppose that there is no Pope, no Lord High Pooh-Bah, on Conservapedia at all - so Andy isn't exempt from critique, neither. That's why Philip J. Rayment could ''dare [to] speak to Andy in the way'' he did... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 12:52, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I'm sure a side-by-side comparison of every single bullying, threatening post of Philip's next to the same from Bugler would settle this matter. Expose Philip's deceit and such like. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Bugler, no, your comment was not accurate and well in order. You said that his position has been made "abundantly clear", and yet he had not addressed some of the concerns raised. And I do not suppose that I'm above criticism, but you seem to think that Andy is, as most of the rest of your post was basically telling me that I shouldn't question Andy. Plus, as I pointed out and others here have concurred, to accuse me of a lack of respect given your track record of not having respect for others is hypocritical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::In recent weeks, months even, the tone you have adopted towards Andy has been increasingly hostile and insubordinate - you know that, I know that. You clearly have issues with his leadership: if that is so, bring them into the open. If not - and if I am wrong - then tell me I'm wrong but prove it also by dropping the hostility. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 18:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: There are a number of things that I disagree with Andy on, and yes, in more recent times I've been more up front with questioning him on those—I ''am'' "bring[ing] them into the open", as you want. But "hostile and insubordinate"? I believe that's taking it too far. I try and remain respectful and civil at all times. I also suspect that you mistake my dislike of some of his claims for dislike of the man himself. I always try and keep the focus on the issues, rather than on the person, although of course this can be difficult when the disagreement is about how the person approaches the issue. But I still maintain that you are not the person to lecture me on this, given your gross disrespect of many people here, including me, an administrator. Andy's quite capable of taking action against me if he chooses, so there's no need for you to defend him from me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)
''Gross disrespect'' ?? Harsh words, old chum. I prefer ''straight-talking''. As for ''I try and remain respectful and civil at all times'', well, yes and no. You're not out and out abusive, but - perhaps you do not realise this - a contemptuous and (moderatedly) aggressive note has been appearing in your posts more and more of late (and not just those aimed at me). And yes, Andy can take action, but if he has any fault it is that his good nature leads him to be indulgent of those who attempt to attack him, and leads to his friends becoming perhaps over protective. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)
: I've known for a long time that I can come over as being harsh without meaning to (even when I try not to), so I won't dispute you on that. As for Andy being indulgent, I'll just say that I think the reality is more complex than that simple analysis, but I'll add that I've no problem with you or anybody else defending his ''position''; it's when you try and stop the ''debate'' that I object. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:Don't fight, my brethren! I love you both. :-) {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
:: Your timing could be a bit better Ed, I think this one is all but over! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:57, 4 November 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for your quick attention ==

Many thanks for deleting that misspelt page so quickly - it was making me look rather foolish.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:24, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks also for the tip re {{tl|db}} - I'll know next time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:30, 4 November 2008 (EST)

== Hello ==

You're a kindly soul Phillip, so could you explain this thing I keep seeing under the block reasons about not using one's initials? Will I have to recreate this account? Thanks in advance. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you referring to people being told ''to use'' their real name and initial? That is something that some administrators tell people who cause trouble. If you don't cause trouble, your existing name is fine. If you decide that you want to change it (some do), post a request on Andy's talk page and provide the name that you'd like to change it to. This avoids having to start a new account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Question==

Not sure if you are the right person but you seem more down to earth xD
How does one go about reminding users with ban rights to follow the rules or w/e? Or *shudders* do you sorta just do a handstand, quack like a duck and walk away, knowing your the more sane?? ¯\(0_o)/¯ [[User:Ema|Ema]] 21:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)
: "w/e"?
: You can tell me the specifics so that I can follow it up.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::"w/e" is an abbreviation for "whatever" [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:24, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Ta. All I could think of was "weekend", which didn't make sense there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry sorry xP bad habits die hard. I snuggled with my kitty last night and fell asleep at the keyboard! :D I was referring to the discussion[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins#All_your_Hitler_are_belong_to_us] where Conservative is trolling the talk page instead of addressing his ideological edits to the article... the stupid Hitler picture is still there, at the top of the article. D: his history of locking pages to end any opposition is purely his way of forcing opinion (and really bad style) into articles. Oh, plus!, there are blog articles like [[Life and Doctrine]] which have no encyclopeedic worth, they were edited by the blog owner (see the talk page!) and it gets deleted and remade so he can hide that little fact [[User:Ema|Ema]] 10:29, 8 November 2008 (EST) I'm new here and already run into high-ranking editors who keep breaking the rules!! sorry to bother you, its just annoying

::::: Whilst Conservative may have failed to respond to all the points put on the Dawkins talk page, I'd hardly classify his comments as "trolling". I see that the Hitler picture has been moved, and I've now commented on that on the talk page. I agree that he locks pages too readily, but he's not breaking any rules in doing so, as you allege. The same applies to ''Life and Doctrine''—no actual rules have been broken. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== MiG-31 ==

Thanks, Philip. That was the one thing I couldn't fix.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:30, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== I thought you might find this humorous and a similar thing happened at my university ==

[[Image:Moving-knock-out-punch-science.gif|thumb|left|500px|At a university evolution vs. creation debate the following is reported to have occurred: "Another [evolutionist] professor asked another question and was refuted and after the audience again burst into thunderous applause and laughter, he left the auditorium in tears and never came back!"[http://www.bible.ca/tracks/videos-quotes.htm] ]]

[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== I don't trust you. ==

You <s>bollocked me</s> blocked me for '''5 long years! ''' 
You promised me I could discuss the block on your talk page. 
I tried to discuss the block and I was blocked from editing your talk page. 
<big>You are a liar! </big> 
JessIsFinished

I made no such promise. Perhaps you are confusing the standard instruction to discuss your block ''by e-mail'' with discussing it on my talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
==Assistance needed==
I am having problems with a sysop here, and not sure what to do about it. This was the comment left by Ed Poor on his edit about my own comments. I am trying to be respectful in disagreement. I am trying to remember that everyone comes at the world from differnet places, but nothing in Ed's tone suggests he is returning that favor. "(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Hate crime‎; 15:39 . . (+999) . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (still trying to make contact with intelligent life form)" Since we were talking about disagreeing with how to read particular comments, and not with an article about aliens in space, I can only conclude that his comments are directed at me or other posters. Do you have a suggestion of how I should handle this? or should i just drop it and move on to some other area of interst? Thanks in advance. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 15:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)
: I would take it as an attempt at humour—whether you think it not funny or in poor taste is up to you—and move on. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::I sent an apology by private email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 12 November 2008 (EST)

==Reprieve of CompuHacker==
I hope that you don't have cause to end up rueing your decision. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)
: So do I. But I'm not going to support a block on the basis of what might happen in the future, and we have a policy of not blocking for ideological edits. You provided no adequate justification of your block.
: And talking of such things, I'm waiting on answers to two e-mails, and I know of two others who have protested blocks directly to you. How are you going on answering them?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::Dear Bugler, maybe Philip J. Rayment will have to rue his decision. The interesting thing is: When P. J. Rayment misplaces his trust, we all can see the consequences, and handle the outcome. When you, Bugler, misplace your mistrust the outcome is covered up, as a disappointed editor who got wrongly blocked for an eternity (and everything over a couple of months is an eternity on the web) has no voice at this site. How many are there whose enthusiasm was smashed by high-handed block comments? We don't know.
::Therefore, P. J. Rayment's policy seems to be more sensible: we can revert the negative effects it may have sometimes, as we perceive those. The negative effects of your policy can't be encountered.
::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::On another note, Hiiiiii and thank you for your time. [[User:CompuHacker|CompuHacker]] 14:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)

==Time to go==
In view of your treasonable remarks, your time to depart has come. I advocate the merciful option, the equivalent of the bottle of whisky and the service revolver, in recognition of your past service in debunking Evolutionism. Better that than being publicly stripped of adminship and blocked. But, after what you have said, go you must. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: What are you talking about? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::He's talking about ''the purpose of this web-site is not to bother with the truth'' with which you emblazoned Andy's talk page. I've blocked your account, while you think over whether your purpose for being here is consonant with our purpose for existing. Do we have anything in common? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: I've unblocked myself because your reason for blocking me was incorrect. I did not call anybody (or anything) names. Instead, I made an accusation, and with good reason. And on what grounds do you accuse me of "liberal" namecalling? If you don't agree with what I said, the proper approach is to discuss it with me, not to use your blocking power to silence criticism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide. Bugler has had repeated confrontations with editors who require such things as citations to back up facts, and he's tired of Philip's tireless crusade for the truth, even if the truth is not always something we like.
::::I think it's rather telling, here, that ''Philip'', an editor who has contributed volumes in the area of creationism among many other conservative topics and a trusted and even-handed (almost to a fault) sysop of well over a year in good standing, was the one who was blocked, and not the relatively new and largely polemic editor who is the subject numerous vitriolic disputes, whos blocks are constantly question and overturned, and who advocated that Philip metaphorically '''get drunk and kill himself with a service revolver'''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using, advocating that Philip do the decent thing rather than have to be prised away. My blocks - I presume that I am the ''relatively new and largely polemic editor'' - are ''constantly question and overturned'' because I am the subject of a campaign of harrassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials. Philip has contributed much in the area of creatuionism. I specifically drew attention to this on Philip's behalf - which HelpJazz omits to mention - and it is the reason why I think he should be offered a dignified exit, which HelpJazz appears to decry. I would add that it has long been time for HelpJazz, too, to go. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I'm a pretty avid fan of this show. I've been left with a cliff-hanger, episode after episode, wherein HelpJazz and Philip are called "liberal," "dishonest," and numerous other disparagements by Bugler, only to cut to the credits ''just'' when the evidence is about to be revealed that will condemn the traitorous scum.

::::::It's brilliant writing, each time I'm left wanting more. Eventually, though, the audience will expect, you know... proof. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:20, 12 November 2008 (EST) ''<-Hi, Bohdan...''

:::::::Oh Az, your humorous response has edit conflicted away my truthful but overly sarcastic and likely-to-get-me-banned retort to Bugler's comment. Thank you, yet again. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::I don't doubt that it's overly-sarcastic, not so sure about the first bit. And if you're banned, you can just do like your protector and unban yourself. So let's have it, HelpJazz. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Philip is my protector? I'd check that assumption. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:56, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Hey, Az: lol + giggle! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:To quote my favorite movie - "Hey, is that [my] fan?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:17, 12 November 2008 (EST) ''<-It's 'That Thing You Do'...

I don't think I've ever had so many posts added to my page in such a short time (including ones below; 15 in the space of 161 minutes)! Responding to various people:

"''That's clearly not why Bugler advocated that Philip commit wiki-suicide.''": If you are referring to Ed Poor's answer of what Bugler's opening post of this section was about, I think Ed is probably right. At the time I asked Bugler what he was talking about, I hadn't seen his reply to that on Andy's talk page.

"''It's rather telling that HelpJazz leaps in flat-footedly to betray an ignorance of the metaphor I was using,...''": I don't see any ignorance here. HelpJazz refers to it as being metaphoric. If you are saying that it is a known metaphor, then I'm ignorant of it also. But then standard metaphors tend to be culture-specific, and we are both from different countries than you, so perhaps that explains it.

"''...I am the subject of a campaign of harassment and intimidation by a Liberal faction within Conservapedia who are aiming to destroy the project and who resent my energetic actions to enhance our conservative credentials.''"": Why just (or especially) you? I'd say that it's not just because you want to "enhance our conservative credentials", as most of us want to do that. Rather, it's your (euphemistically-stated) "energetic actions". That is, you are not harassed by a "Liberal" faction (I hope you aren't including me in that category) simply because you are a conservative, but because of they manner by which you conduct yourself. Who on Conservapedia is the biggest threat to the "liberal" viewpoint? I guess that opinions on that differ, but at least one committed evolutionist elsewhere thinks I am (if I remember accurately), because ''I argue the case for creation so well'' (logically and accurately)! So why it is that ''you'' are the one getting harrassed if I'm the bigger threat? Because "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger". What Conservapedia needs is more sensible argument and less power-tripping.

And finally Aziraphale, I'm also a fan of your comments.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Philip J. Rayment is intelligent and fair and is the Sysop I most respect at this wiki. -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 07:03, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: Seconding this. [[user:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:35, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: Thanks Taj. I appreciate it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Sorry for the Prosaic Question... ==

... but are you who I would coordinate with re: categories? I feel a burst coming on, what with uncategorized pages breaching 1000. Believe it or not, the last time I got the urge I was still guided by TK. Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: I was about to ask the same thing. [[:Category:Movies]] contains several subcategories that seemed misnamed. For instance, [[:Category:Comedy]] should either be renamed [[:Category:Comedy movies]] (to distinguish it from [[:Category:Comedy books]]), or else it should be added under [[:Category:Books]] as well.
: Category renames take some work, I'm willing to do the work, but I want some community input before I go spamming RecentChanges, so that I don't have to make yet another change later.
: Is this the best place to have these discussions? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::Unfortunately, some categories were made that were not, as you see, labeled in a form that works in a multi-topic database structure. Philip may want this conversation moved, but proper upkeep of categories is an area of importance to our project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Interiot - are you kidding? Spamming RecentChanges is the only reason I categorize! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:56, 12 November 2008 (EST) ''<-lookout folks, he's in a mood...''
We could create [[Conservapedia:Categories for discussion]] to discuss category renames/merges/deletions. Any objections? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:For some reason MediaWiki (at least as used here) won't let one move category pages, so deleting them and creating new ones is the only way to go. As for changing the categories on articles, [[user:EdBot|EdBot]] can take all the hard work out of that.
:I've no objections to creating [[Conservapedia:Categories for discussion]] (or would [[Conservapedia:Categories]] be better?). Personally, I've only slowly come kicking and screaming to understanding categories, and I'm probably not really one to offer much of an expert opinion on what should be and what shouldn't. But if you need help with administrator-only tasks like deleting the redundant category pages, I'm willing to help.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I think maybe I didn't ask my question clearly. I just want to categorize the 1000 or so articles that are currently uncategorized. Occasionally a question will come up, should I ask it here or somewhere else? OR... does this Edbot thing automatically categorize things? That would be super-cool, but I'm unaware of this capability. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:31, 13 November 2008 (EST) ''<-back to his old tricks...''

::: I gather that EdBot is basically a string replacer. No, it's not a categoriser. I mentioned it in reference to Interiot's comment about category ''renamings'' taking some work, for which he gave the example of renaming Category:Comedy to Category:Comedy movies. Clearly, however, it's no good if you want to split a category into two separate categories (e.g. some to Category:Comedy books) or add a new category, but it can still help in many situations. As for where you ask about what category to assign, then no, I don't think my talk page is the place for that, and that's why a separate page for that would be appropriate. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Duplicate pages for deletion processes ==

There seem to be duplicate pages for each deletion process:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left:2em"
|-
! AFD: main page
| [[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion]]
| [[Conservapedia:Desk/afd]]
|-
! AFD: template
| {{tl|Delete Notice}}
| {{tl|Delete}}
|-
! AFD: category
| [[:Category:Articles proposed for deletion]]
| [[:Category:Deletion candidates]]
|-
! copyright
| [[Conservapedia:Copying]]
| [[Conservapedia:Desk/Copyright]]
|-
! speedy deletion
| [[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates]]
| [[Conservapedia:Desk/speedy]]
|}

I think the right ones should be merged into the left ones. I can't fix this myself because [[Conservapedia:Desk]] is protected, and the AFD categories and AFD templates are protected. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: The deletion process is a quagmire that I've long been avoiding getting stuck in, although I agree that it needs sorting out. I think, however, that the ones in the right-hand column are mostly the newer ones, and therefore ''should'' be the ones kept. But that's ignoring the merits of each; it may in fact be better to go the way you suggest, I don't know. I'm not trying to get out of this, but perhaps we'll leave this here for a few days and see if anybody else wants to chip in their two cents' worth.
: In the meantime, how are the fixes to the edit counter coming? :-)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Okay, yeah. I've settled into my new apartment, but I'm probably going to be pretty busy this next week or two. I'll work on it right after that though. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 09:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::In my opinion, while I like the idea of an AfD process, in practice it doesn't work very well. So, if we set down very specific rules and have a sysop willing to enforce them (I expect that will be you, Philip ;-) ) then I think we can narrow it down to {{tl|speedy}} and {{tl|delete}}. If we don't want to make more rules, then I say get rid of everything but {{tl|speedy}} and perhaps {{tl|db}} (which wasn't included in the list above, by the way; further proof that this is a bit of a mess). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:::You don't need both {{tl|db}} and {{tl|speedy}} because they overlap - {{tl|db}} is the same as {{tl|speedy}}, except that it allows you to fill in a reason other than the ones listed. Ideally I think that {{tl|speedy}} should therefore be scrapped and {{tl|db}} kept; the only problem with that is that I've seen people using {{tl|speedy}}, so they would have to be alerted to the change somehow.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I think it makes more sense to keep {{tl|speedy}} and add the reason parameter to it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I agree if that's an option - certainly the name 'speedy' is more user-friendly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the block just now. Didn't know if there was anyone on patrol.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the unblock ==

I still haven't been able to find out why I was blocked in the first place.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Requested edit ==

[[:Category:Maintenance]] and [[:Category:Articles proposed for deletion]] are protected. Could you either unprotect them, or make these edits?
* Put a {{[[template:Category redirect|Category redirect]]|[[:Category:Conservapedia Maintenance]]}} on [[:Category:Maintenance]]
* Move [[:Category:Articles proposed for deletion]] to [[:Category:Conservapedia Maintenance]] instead
Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
: I've unprotected them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Parolees ==

If you don't want the announcement that [[User:BRichtigen]] is on parole to be on his user page, fine. But that doesn't change that I'm still paroling him for the month. Also, I have put parole announcements up before, with [[User:TerryH]]'s permission. It's a job that should be done and I'm happy to fill those shoes. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:26, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:It's nice to have at least one who reads the stuff that I write! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
: I was unaware that you'd had TerryH's permission before to put someone on parole, but if that was a specific case, then doing it with an administrator's permission is not the same as doing it on your own volition. Blocking rights are supposed to be for [[Conservapedia:User rights#Blocking rights|taking vandals out quickly]], not as a de-facto administrator, although I don't want to criticise you for that given that this rule is ignored even at the highest levels. Further, BRichtigen has been hounded lately, and deserves to be left alone to get on with his editing, which is another reason that I oppose him being put on parole (it's not just the notice on his user page that I disagree with). However, I will consider changing my mind if you give me good solid evidence of a good reason to do so, and something vague like "being disruptive" is not likely to cut it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:56, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:: I had TerryH's permission to put [[User:Saxplayer]] on parole. After that, I also put [[User:JakobL]] on parole and he turned out to be a vandal, so it was important that we kept an eye on him. I apologize if I overstretched my authority, but with Geo.plrd unfortunately not as frequent an editor as he used to be, I think someone else needs to take up the reins of the parole system. And since many sysops seem to be overworked already, I volunteered myself for that duty.
:: As for BRichtigen, I don't believe he is being hounded. A respectful user does not get blocked '''six''' times by three different senior editors within only a month of being on the site. His disruptive edits:
::: *the second page he edited was the Desk\Abuse, stirring up old leaves about accusations of mistreated editors
::: *I did not appreciate his sarcastic edit comments on the [[Graz]] article, but kept silent at the time
::: *[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Photoelectric_effect&diff=next&oldid=543189] "I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is.", a swipe at [[User:RSchlafly]].
:: and this is what I hold him accountable for. I think there is already ample evidence of what Ed Poor has to say in this regard. Individually, these are not edits that I would block him for, but in sum, for a new editor, they draw attention and that is why he is on parole. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::It would be dangerous to judge the conduct of new editors based on how many times they get blocked. It is really not clear what might get one blocked on CP. It certainly APPEARS clear, but if you look over the list of blocks & check some of the contributions that earned the blocks, the rules are applied in a similar manner to the way a hammer is applied for piano-tuning. The sysops themselves seem to have a lot of their time wasted on determining whether editors really should have been blocked, and unblocking those that should've have been.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 07:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::: Foxtrot, I appreciate that you've taken the trouble to respond in detail, something that I find some others unwilling to do.
::: I would dispute your first contention; BRichtigen's case shows that respectful editors ''do'' get blocked six times by three different senior editors.
::: Further, rather than just looking superficially at the number of blocks, I'm taking into account whether the blocks were justified. And in fact the blocks are a large part of the "hounding" I referred to. So in effect your response is that "no he's not being hounded, as shown by the amount of hounding [blocking] he's had"!
::: I don't know which six of his seven blocks you are counting, but one of the blocks was an automatic one by Guard Dog, incurred for the vandalism-reversal he was doing. So if you discount this clearly-inappropriate block, there's only ''two'' people left blocking him.
::: Not only that, but apart from his first two short blocks, every single block was reverted by an administrator on the grounds that it was not justified. Where does that leave your case?
::: I don't see anything wrong with the other three examples you gave. In the case of [[Photoelectric effect]], he was no more having a go at RSchafly (who, you will note, is one who lifted a block, so obviously doesn't hold it against BRichtigen) than at himself, as he makes the same speculation about himself.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Maybe the reversions are in themselves a form of hounding, of the blocking editors. Such things happen. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: That's theoretically possible, but in that case you'd need to argue that two different editors were hounding two ''other'' different editors, which is less likely, plus that still ignores the facts of the individual cases and whether the blocks really were justified or not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: First of all, I want to thank all of you who took some time to argue for and against my case. Here's my reply to Foxtrot's points
:::::::*A long block-log seems to serve as something like a lightning-rod, regardless of the quality of the entries
:::::::*It irked me that governor Schwarzenegger was the only one to be mentioned in connection with [[Graz]]. Granted, he's a person of national importance and a celebrity for his movies. But he wasn't even born in Graz, and there are other outstanding historical figures ([[Kepler]]!, [[Nernst]]!, [[Boltzmann]]!, [[Schroedinger]]!, [[Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach|Fischer von Erlach]]) who were so much more connected to Graz than A. Schwarzenegger is.
:::::::*I had lengthy discussions with R. Schlafly, which contributed - IMO - interesting points to the corresponding articles. We have somewhat different opinions about the contribution of various historical figures to the sciences, but I hope that we both enjoyed our debates. I did for sure!
:::::::*I've been sensible to blocks from the very beginning - even before I became an editor. (I joint just to correct the spelling of [[Johann Strauss]], it was a mistake which was painful to any German speaking reader - and got somewhat ''sucked in'' this wiki thereafter). I won't apologize for contributing to the Desk/Abuse section, I'll keep doing so in the future - even if the only reaction is that it is counted against me.
:::::::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Reply to Philip: I'll give you that the one block by the Guard Dog was not a legit block, but TerryH's unblock comment does not exactly sound apologetic. As for the remaining blocks, I'll note that except for one unblock by RSchlafly, all the remaining unblocks were done by you. They were not done by the original editors who blocked him, in fact Ed Poor re-blocked him shortly after you and RSchlafly undid the blocks. So it seems to be some senior editors' opinion versus another's on the justifications of those blocks. That's where this analysis leaves my case, so since it seems to be unresolved to everyone's satisfaction, that's why he's on parole. We'll see if he can be a good boy in that time.

Reply to BRichtigen: The names could have been added to the Graz article without the sarcasm. You had just created the article and I was helping out by adding my own nugget of information I know about that small city that I doubt many people outside of Europe have heard of. Wikis are places for people to ''appreciate'' other editor's contributions of factual content. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:42, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Sorry if my ''sarcasm'' annoyed you. But it's like coming from Baltimore to Europe and everyone tells you: ''Hey, Baltimore, isn't that the place were David Hasselhoff was born?'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Has anyone else famous come from [[Baltimore]]? :-P -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Foxtrot, TerryH's unblock comment was unfortunate, but it related to something that you couldn't know about (and was unfortunate because BRichtigen couldn't know about it either), and was not an indication that there was any mistrust there.
: I never said that the unblocks were done by the original blocking editors. I said that they were reverted by administrators ''on the grounds that they were invalid''. And that bit I've emphasised is the important point, and a point that you've not disputed. If you are going to take a position on this, you need to look deeper than just "editors' opinions" and see who is ''correct''.
: Your analysis still comes down to arguing that he's got to be watched because you don't understand whether he's done anything wrong or not. That is illogical. I said that you can't put him on parole and that stands. ''He is not on parole''. Period.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Philip, all these points were ''in addition'' to the discussions with Ed Poor that merited him at least some of his bans. But fine, since parole designation is officially a sysop capability and Geo.plrd is not around to weigh in, I'll accept that he is not officially on parole. I'm going to still keep an eye on him though. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your advice with the dinosaur article. I would very much appreciate it if you could cast a quick glance over the other articles I've written and see if I've made any other elementary mistakes?--[[User:PhillipM|PhillipM]] 08:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
: See the changes I've made. Don't put more than one blank line above or below headings, or anywhere else unless you specifically want a bigger-than-normal space between paragraphs, use a spelling checker (and proofread your edits, as spelling checkers won't pick up everything), use a "References" heading or similar for references, and sign talk-page posts (type four tildes or there's a button on the edit box toolbar—oh hang on, you've remembered that this time!). And if you know what's appropriate (this is something I didn't do), add at least one category to each article. But otherwise, keep up the good work! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks again. I was watching your edits and I've tried to put some of the advice into practice. For some reason I find it really hard to remember to sign things :) --[[User:PhillipM|PhillipM]] 09:19, 16 November 2008 (EST)

=="if he's genuine"==
Thanks so much, Philip, for calling me a liar on TK's talk page. I really appreciate being the recipient of unprovoked insults. I suppose I should be glad you didn't threaten me the way you did TK. Are you genuine, by the way? Not the genuine 'reasonable old PJR' you pose as, at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:47, 17 November 2008 (EST)
: I did not call you a liar nor insult you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: I'm (almost) speechless. "Hi Bugler, I think you may well not be a real editor but a parodist troll. But hey, don't take it to heart, I'm not insulting you or implying that you're mendacious in any way." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:27, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: It's clear that you have no case when you have to make up the evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:30, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::I have to paraphrase,because you ignore the evidence when it is placed in front of you. I thought it was emus that are native to Australia, not ostriches. Pay attention, friend Philip: you did make that accusation. And, in denying that you have been presented with the evidence, you are lying. You '''know''' that I am taking issue with what you said on TK's page; the quote is in the section header; you said, "'''Bugler, if he's genuine'''", impugning my good faith and truthfulness. How much clearer do you want it?[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I do not ignore evidence.
::::: Saying "Bugler, if he's genuine" does ''suggest'' the ''possibility'' that you are not. It does not constitute calling you a liar.

;:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::So if I were to write "User:PurposeofDebate, if he's not a bullying, closet-Liberal old fool", it wouldn't constitute an insult, right? You'd make a good political spin doctor, wuith your habit of snide little smears and your oily way of denying responsibility for them. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Well being suspected of "not being genuine" is as bad or worse than being called a liar, with all due respect, Philip. I'm sure soon someone will suspect that my other edit was sarcastic instead of genuinely admiring and accordingly block me. Good intent should always be assumed! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 08:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Bugler, if you were genuine, then you could have ignored Philip's comment because you ''knew'' you were genuine. Causing a big deal out of it just make you seem even more suspicious. (I'm not saying you aren't genuine) [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 07:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Been busy ==

I seem to have been rather busy lately, and/or Conservapedia has been busy (both, I think), and I'm rather behind in responding to various matters here and in e-mails, sorry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Obama==
Please desist immediately from you unilateral and unapproved actions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: My actions are not unilateral nor unapproved, as they have the support of five other senior administrators. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: I no longer have any faith in your word, so name them. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::I for one. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, knock it off. If you can't discuss your differences of opinion with out personal remarks, maybe you better leave the subject of [[Barack Obama]] alone. Your other work is excellent. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)

A partial list has been posted by another user on the Barack Obama talk page. If Andy wants the remaining names, I can supply them, although he has received copies of the e-mails with their comments, so in theory he already knows. I will also point out that although Andy tries to marginalise the relevance, he doesn't dispute that the claim is true. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind. In this case, since the site is Mr. Schlafly's, and he is a Bureaucrat, perhaps the better part of valor would be to leave the Obama article alone now. It is more than obvious you are not going to change his thinking on this, right? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: "''You have admonished users, Philip, about continuing to argue their point, once you have made up your mind.''": I have? Where?
:: I think the valorous thing would be to stick up for the truth, which is required by Commandment 1.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::Please, my Great Uncle is long dead, lol. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered...... ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#How_to_collaborate Oh most patient and eloquent defender of YEC someone has ever encountered......]

When are you going to unleash your [[Human evolution]] article? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== EZine in [[Dance]] ==

Hi Philip. I seem to remember you knowing something about the spam filter. I was trying to fix up [[Dance]], but it said the one reference that is currently split causes the spam filter. Is there something wrong with that site that I don't know about, or is there something I can do to fix it. (I know there are problems going on elsewhere, so obviously there's no rush to answer me. Shame about HelpJazz though.) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: I gather that this has now been fixed? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:13, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Actually, there just seems to be a jury-rigged workaround: "EzineArticles.com, Can You Appreciate the Art of Ballet?, by Jeffrey Meier <nowiki>http://ezinearticles</nowiki>'''DOT'''com/?Can-You-Appreciate-the-Art-of-Ballet?&id=294632" [emphasis and nowiki mine]. I haven't searched around the site, so I don't know if there's an established problem with that particular site, or if it's some weird glitch of the system. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 13:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::I did the work-around (at least the current version). It's not ideal. The spam filter says it doesn't like ezinearticles.com - I have no idea why this would be a trigger. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:29, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I've left a message on CPWebmaster's talk page about this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Question==
Before I get "busted" for defending myself with the 90/10 rule, or the "you don't agree" rule, whatever that rule is - do you know if Bharlan is a sysop? He's decided that since i opposed the word Negro on a page, he's making it his job to "out" me as a liberal, by simply pointing out when I disagree with others. Fine and dandy, but I'm concerned about defending myself if he can use it to justify a block. Thanks for any help. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 21:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:[[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] is not a sysop and has not been granted any other rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==User:Saxplayer==
I see that this user is on parole, but is active on CP. If you have evidence that he is a parodist, then he should be given a block of appropriate length. If, however, he is not a parodist, then you ought not to be making baseless remarks. Either way, I think that your excision of his remark from Andy's talk page is unjustifiable. Could you please explain your reasons for the reversion? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)
: I leave blocking of parolees to the administrator who put them on parole. My reasons for the deletion were in the edit comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::It didn't strike me as substanceless therefore I propose to rstore it; besides, we should only delete edits from other peoples' talk pages if they are abusive, obscene or damaging. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, but don't restore it to the middle of someone else's post as it originally was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Controversial template ==

TK has suggested I contact you about the {{tl|Controversial}} template. I suggested on the [[Obama]] talk page that a template like it might help avoid some of the endless arguing that is going on there. However, there's a problem with the template's code and the page is locked, though it says on the talk page what needs doing.

Could you fix the code, and maybe make the wording a bit more diplomatic so as not to put off new users? I do think that if this template is ever going to be needed, the [[Obama]] page is a prime case. Many thanks.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:: I've fixed the bug, although I'm not sure that I agree with putting the template on the Obama page. I also haven't changed the wording. What do you suggest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Why not changing the headline '''Obama will likely be the first Muslim President''' into '''Will Obama be the first Muslim President?'''. No need for a template, and the pro & cons could be added thereafter. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:: Because Andy won't accept anything that doesn't make Obama look like a Muslim, at least up the top. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, I slapped the "Controversial" template onto the talk page, as I know Andy doesn't like such on the article itself. Thanks for fixing it!. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:38, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So where does the link in the template to "discussing" go? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: It doesn't go anywhere. I propose creating a {{tl|controversialtalk}} template that says:
:::::: ''This talk page is about a controversial topic, and many of the issues have already been discussed at length. Please read this page and the archive pages before contributing, to check that your concerns have not already been answered.''
::::: That ought to stop some of the circularity at least.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==:-)==
I've been meaning to say for some time - I really appreciate the way you conduct yourself here. Calm, level-headed, and committed to the truth even if it doesn't further your view of things. You are honest and chivalrous. Don't let those who are not get you down - it's not worth it. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== An Apology ==

My apology for the sparring match we had some months ago. You probably don't remember, but I feel I was being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, and wanted to apologise. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 13:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)
: I don't particularly remember, but apology accepted anyway! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)

== Barack Obama article ==

It's probably not a good idea to get into a revert war. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 21:32, 23 November 2008 (EST)
: Does that apply to Andy too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::Well the chain of authority seems to be that editors may not revert sysop/admin work, whilst sysop/admins may not revert higher (bureaucrat) positions. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 21:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::: I have a note on my user page that my ''edits'' are not sacrosanct and can be altered by other editors. As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::Jallen raises an issue I have been discussing with other sysops. I do think it would be helpful if it was clearly stated if Sysops can revert Bureaucrats and if that is not the case, I think we should have an appeal process. Unless we state that bureaucrats are infallible, I do think an appeal process is necessary. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:15, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama ==

The discussions on the Obama page are long and frequently venture off topic (you bieng a liberal). So I ask here: what exactly is it that you attempting to do in the article itself? Is there a line or section you want removed? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:I would imagine it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=567235&oldid=567207 these sections] that he'd like to see removed. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:56, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yes, those sections for starters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::Since discussion isn't really working, why don't you propose some sort of straw poll like at wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLL#Straw_poll_guidelines]? To see how many established editors agree with you? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:06, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::: The Barack Obama talk page already has a list of administrators who agree with me (in general terms at least), and I know of a couple of other senior administrators who agree with me. No administrator (barring Andy) has disagreed with me. Andy knows this, but that doesn't convince him either (which is why Conservative's last edit on this page is relevant), so a straw poll is not going to make any difference, except to encourage various socks, parodists, and sycophants to add their views and thereby muddy the waters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Notice how I said established. Could we not limit it to administrators and users with a certain amount of edits? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmm, I did miss "established". I don't like judging things like this on the basis of numbers of edits, as that is affected not just by how "established" they are, but whether they use the preview button, whether they are writing a few long articles/talk page comments or lots of small ones, etc. Also, as I said, I doubt that any sort of straw poll will make any difference anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)

*Maybe one reason for not doing so is that Conservapedia has always rejected the idea of a "mobocracy", from the very start. Conservapedia has, from the very beginning as well, rejected the the byzantine, bureaucratic ways of Wikipedia. Boards, commissions, polls, are liberal-like in their reliance on opinion rather than common sense. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:39, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, by ''Mobocracy'' you mean ''democracy'' right? Anyways I thought i'd draw PJR's attention to Alexander Downer being listed as a liberal on the professor values page. ASchafly seems to like him there so im not sure what you can do about it...--[[User:HanG|HanG]] 18:09, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::One of the principle reasons the United States is the worlds oldest enduring democracy is that we aren't. ''We are a Representative Democracy''. Pure democracy, a mobocracy, historically descend to chaos and disruption. Such as what you see daily, dozens of times daily, on Wikipedia. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:14, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I guess the distinction that you are trying to make is between letting just anybody participate in the decision making and letting those that have some claim to be representative be involved. In that regard, I guess I agree with you, and that's why I am also posting above that a straw poll lets every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sock have a say. (On the other hand, the idea of a straw poll is to discover what the people think, not to make a decision.)
:::: However, the problem here is that we don't have even a representative democracy, but a dictatorship (even if you want to cell it a benevolent one), in that one person is making the decisions and those that would otherwise be considered the "representatives" are having their views ignored (in that they are not being taken into account).
:::: Your first sentence of your last post is not clear: "we aren't" ''what''? Aren't a "mobocracy"? Assuming that's what you mean, then you appear to be claiming that the U.S. ''is'' the world's oldest "enduring" democracy. I'm not sure either what "enduring" means in this context, but I take it to mean continuous and/or still operating.
:::: That particular claim is very much disputed, and it appears that the definition of "democracy" is the key. I've long understood the Isle of Man to have the oldest continuous democracy, but although they have the oldest continuous ''parliament'' (dating back to 979), it seems that it doesn't count because not everyone always got a vote. Britannica lists Iceland as the oldest continuous democracy, although another source said that was the oldest ''parliament'', starting in 930, but not continuous. Further claims are based on everyone, including women, getting a vote, which New Zealand claims to be the first (1893, vs. 1920 in the U.S.), but allegedly the Isle of Man got that in 1881! There are even more claimants that this, as can be seen [http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-80426,00.html here] (or [http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WdrM3zQH_nwJ:www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-80426,00.html+oldest+democracy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera here] if that didn't work as it didn't for me). One comment there was that "America frequently claims to be but this is because they define democracy so narrowly and in their own image such that on their criteria they're the worlds only democracy and on any other criteria they still aren't and never have been."
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Why not have a straw poll on a conservapedia page for the Obama issue that is Sysop only. I personally would like to know more precisely what the Sysops believe about the Obama article. I suggest having a Obama article straw poll with multiple questions. Let me know if you do it. I would participate. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, let's meet at [[Conservapedia:Obama straw poll]], a protected page but visible to all. Let everyone watch as we sysops discuss the issue (like a [[symposium]], but with no interruptions from the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Duplicate Article==

Hello Philip,
I haven't been here in a while but I have a break now and can try and contribute. Anyway, there are duplicate articles for ice hockey (Ice hockey & Ice Hockey). The Ih one is better than the IH article and the IH should be deleted. However, I think that the main article should be titled Ice Hockey. I don't know how to do this change, could you help out? Thanks --[[User:JasterMereel|Jaster]] 21:46, 26 November 2008 (EST)
: As well as being the better article, [[Ice hockey]] is also the oldest one and with the largest history. It is also the one that conforms to our article-naming guidelines in our style manual. It should be the one retained, and [[Ice Hockey]] should be edited to be a redirect to [[Ice hockey]]. You are able to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:55, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Member ==

Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Creationism==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=573914 this edit]. We need to know more about the Creationism. In particular, I'd like to understand what Old Earth and Young Earth creationists have in common, as well as where they part company. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:What do you need to know that is not already explained? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Your efforts don't go unnoticed ==

Hi Philip, I just wanted to stop by to commend you on your tireless work. (I've browsed around on this site for sometime now, only recently wrote a comment or two) I appreciate all your posts and understand that it's definitely hard doing what you do in this forum. Your views are often met with sarcasm and condescension (the shouts of '''''Liberal!''''' ring when you try to explain why Obama is likely not a Muslim or when you speak for Gun Control), and yet you continue on in a calm and collected manner that is too few and far between on the Internet in general. You present facts in rational dialogue in a place that's often void of it and I just wanted to say thanks. At the risk of sounding over the top here, I really do believe that your presence on Conservapedia helps greatly with its credibility.--[[User:SJames|SJames]] 15:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: Agreed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: I'm underscoreb and I approve of this message. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Me, too, Philip. I don't think Senator Obama is a Muslim; I always thought of him as a nominal Christian. I mean, take me, for example, would anyone say I was a non-Christian '''solely''' on the grounds that I have a Jewish mother (the daughter of two Jewish parents)? Or that I've been known, on occasion, to wear a [[yarmulke]]? Or that I'm pro-[[Israel]]?

::On the grounds that he looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to a lot of people he is "an apparent Muslim" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=561740&oldid=561737] but not to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Hear, hear. And Ed, he doesn't even ''look'' like a duck! He knows a bit about ducks, that is all! [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::I too stand behind you Philip. People like you will see Conservapedia to success, that is if they have the same intestinal fortitude you have.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 10:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for all the nice comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Compromise==
In case you haven't yet noticed, I'm attempting to create a compromise regarding the Obama article on the talk page of the straw poll. If you get the chance to weigh in and help me, as the independent arbiter, to come to an agreement between your 'clique' and Andy/Bugler's 'posse' I'd really appreciate it. Thanks --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:36, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: I was just reading it. I will respond there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Movement==

<nowiki># (Move log); 21:31 . . Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs | block) Category project moved to Conservapedia:Category project (Not appropriate for mainspace.)</nowiki>

Thanks for the above ... I was gonna do it, but I never got around to it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:59, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== PJR, I think some Irish creationists' eyes are going to be smilin' ==

[[Image:Clog-dancer.gif|thumbnail|right|500px|Top of the mornin' to you Irish atheists and [[evolution|evolutionists]]! Conservapedia is likely going to use a connection it has to Northern Ireland citizens to get its evolution article ranked higher at the search engines. In addition, do not be surprised if the atheism article ranks higher at Google Ireland in the coming weeks! ]]
Andy, I think some Irish creationists' eyes are going to be smilin' :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:30, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Article needs some TLC ==

Phillip, can you please take a look over [[Eureka_Stockade]]? It desperately needs some attention, but I am reluctant to make changes as I expect that to do so would be considered provocative.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:Done. I wonder if the Americans rebelling against the legitimate British authorities were also left-wing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::I went an expanded it a bit myself as well anyway.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 07:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::: I noticed that. And co-incidentally, I was at a party tonight where the topic came up, and someone mentioned that the taxes that the miners were objecting to were the first (Australian, I gather) introduction of a form of income tax. Aren't "conservatives" (American one at least) opposed to that? Isn't that a "liberal" idea? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== FA template ==
My friend;

I have noticed a bizarre quirk at Featured Article with the templates. For some reason, several do not show any votes. Do you have any ideas on how this can be fixed? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 01:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:Geo, the problem is fixed. TK needs to use a simple signature. His fancy sig line was messing up the show function. I deleted all the fancy stuff in his prior sigs and now the template is working. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== AndyJM ==

Philip, I noticed you unblocked AndyJM, saying "removing information from articles" is not a good block reason. I'm sorry, but removing factual information from articles IS one of our most common block reasons. Why did you not discuss this block with me before undoing it? Please clarify. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: Foxtrot, there's more than one problem with your claim:
:* It supposedly being "one of our most common block reasons" does not mean that it's a valid reason. All it means is that there's a lot of improper blocking going on. I would doubt, however, that it ''is'' one of our most common reasons.
:* You blocked for "removing information from articles", and now excuse that by referring to "removing ''factual'' information from articles". So you've just switched reasons. "Factual" was not in the reason you gave.
:* Putting the word "factual" in your reason when the accuracy of the material is in dispute means that you are blocking to enforce your POV of what's factual and what's not. That's not a valid reason for a block.
:* Being factual is not in and of itself sufficient reason for information being in articles. It also has to be relevant.
: AndyJM's edits do not appear to be vandalism (i.e. malicious) and you've not even suggested let alone claimed that they are. Neither were they part of an edit war or similar. From what I can tell, this case is nothing more than you blocking someone because you have a disagreement with them about content.
: I've just blocked you for the same time that you blocked AndyJM, for the same reason. You removed content (and factual content I might add) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bias&diff=prev&oldid=571972 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Slavic_language&diff=prev&oldid=571717 here]. If you agree that there is sometimes good reason to remove content—even factual content—then you have my permission to unblock yourself immediately. If you don't agree, then you should leave yourself blocked.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(edit conflict)
:If someone removes valid statements, it is of course a blockable offense. I reviewed AndyJM's edits, and I gave a partial review on Foxtrot's talk page. Here's the complete set:
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Axiom_of_Choice&diff=prev&oldid=570932 Axiom of Choice] He removed the statement that the Axiom of Choice is equivalent to the existence of non-Lebesgue measurable subsets of the real line. The statement was false, so the removal was correct.
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Axiom_of_Choice&diff=prev&oldid=570938 Talk:Axiom of Choice]He explained his edit
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Irrational_number&diff=prev&oldid=570945 Irrational number] He removed the statement that "an irrational number is formally defined to be the limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers." This statement is at least misleading, as - loosely speaking - '''any''' real number can be defined as a limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers, or, in other words, not every limit of a [[Cauchy sequence]] of rational numbers is an irrational number. Loosely speaking, as we talk about the set of equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences, etc.
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Irrational_number&diff=prev&oldid=570946 Irrational number] Correcting a typo
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Irrational_number&diff=prev&oldid=570954 Irrational number] He added "Moreover the decimal expansion of an irrational number never repeats. For a rational number this is not true. For example <math>1/3=0.33333....</math>" Though I don't like this formulation very much, it's a valid point
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Continuum_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=570963 Continuum hypothesis] He removed the statement "The cardinality of such a set would be denoted by the Hebrew letter <math>\aleph</math>." Well, the cardinality of such a set, i.e., the continuum, is commonly abbreviated with '''c''', so the continuum hypothesis can be phrased as: ''does'' '''c''' ''equal'' <math>2^{\aleph_0}</math>? Only an <math>\aleph</math> with an index is used, so, yes, he removed an false statement.
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Continuum&diff=prev&oldid=570967 Continuum hypothesis] The same as above, he cleared the difference between <math>2^{\aleph_0}</math> and <math>\aleph_1</math>. This was correct, too.
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Continuum&diff=prev&oldid=570969 Continuum hypothesis] He removed the statement "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians." That's the only point - in my opinion - where he perhaps shouldn't have erased the statement, but asked for a source, first. It would have turned out, that the term ''continuous set'' is at best obscure - ''[http://eom.springer.de/c/c025760.htm The phrase "continuous set" is not used in the Western literature.]'' and that this statement should be erased, so, yes, his edit comment "There is no such thing as a continuous set" was virtually correct...
:#[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Continuum&diff=prev&oldid=570971 Continuum]He erased "No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. Since the [[Complex_number|complex numbers]] add the [[Imaginary_number|imaginary number]], i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order." This, he explained in his edit comment: "The statement removed is not true. One could add a number at either end of the real line, define the order in the obvious way and one would still have a continuum." Well, adding a point to the continuum would prevent it from being a ''continuous set'', but that is a moot point, at least in western literature :-)
:Foxtrot, which of the removed statements do you think to be correct? I'm of the opinion that the removal of false (1-7) or misleading (8-9) statements improves an article.
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::: "''If someone removes valid statements, it is of course a blockable offense.''": I disagree. If someone removes valid statements ''in the genuine belief that they are invalid'', why should they be blocked? If they ''repeatedly'' remove valid statements after being warned not to, that's a different matter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for unblocking me. Yes, I didn't take into account ''honest mistakes'', my fault. And if one is not sure about whether to erase information, one should first use the corresponding talk page.
:::::In this special case, however, I'm afraid that Foxtrot (re)inserted factual false information - as shown above - but, of course, he did so in good faith.
:::::I hope that he has now seen where his mathematical reasoning went wrong
:::::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)
:::Philip, blocking me was completely uncalled for and you have completely overstepped your authority. This subject had been discussed, and Andy's voiced himself on the matter and now you are ignoring all that and taking sides for a novice editor whose intent is to cause trouble. You do not know mathematics so leave it to those who do. Do not disrespect the heirarchy here by placing the endless complaints of one editor over my and especially Andy's wisdom on the subject. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::: You claim that blocking you was uncalled for, yet I blocked you for the same reason that you said you blocked AndyJM. So is that an admission that ''his'' block was uncalled for? I've already explained this to you, and you've not answered this key point, which suggests that you have no answer. Until you answer this key point, don't bother discussing this any further. And I'll only answer your ''new'' claims once we deal with that one (if you still want me to). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::::I support Foxtrot's statement 100 per cent. Philip has completely overstepped and abused his authority, and Foxtrot was completely within his rights to ignore a block issued under such circumstances. Philip has problems accepting discipline and collective responsibility; he has a record of indiscipline and defiance towards ''legitimate'' authority; and is notorious for supporting and protecting vandals, saboteurs and infiltrators. Meanwhile, he is not shy of playing the 'I'm an admin' card when its suits hhis purposes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:28, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::: There's the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 6 December 2008 (EST)

FoxTrot & Bugler, give it a rest. Philip is a senior admin. If he says someone should be blocked or unblocked, I always listen to him. I trust his judgment, and I don't have to know "all the reasons". I wish you both would concentrate more on adding important, reliable information to articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== User may need some attention. ==

See this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=582022&oldid=581810]]. As you were the most recent sysop to unblock the user, I thought it appropriate to bring this to your attention. Despite all the other claims flying around about users, it looks like '''this one''' actually is a troublemaker. I reverted the edits. I know it's a talk page, but they were blasphemous as far as I am concerned.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:29, 9 December 2008 (EST)
: Thanks for this. He appears to have been trying to make a point by analogy, rather than to be blasphemous. In any case, it has been reverted, and he has a short block give him pause to think about his actions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Answering my telephone which is not red ==
I direct interested inhabitants of the sock draw to [[information]], particularly the section on ''Measuring information''. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4947 this] article (referenced in the ''Measuring information'' section) and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2075/ this] article. However, I don't intend to have a long discussion on this by red telephone. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:You ought not to be having one at all. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: Hey, they rang me! If I want to answer the call, that's my business, not yours. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::Tell that to [[user:Conservative|Conservative]]. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::Well, quite. But we don't want this sort of thing spreading or being seen as acceptable. The next thing you know, there will be an epidemic of it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::: So you didn't see my comment above about not making this a long call? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Not red? All done with just the one edit? What have we here? As you well know, someone who certain people think is rational and intelligent. Look, the information debate is interesting, very. There is also a dearth of creationists who are willing and able to debate the issue properly. Yes, there are plenty of irrational idiots on the evolutionist side, however there are many who want to discuss the issues and we need someone to dicuss them with. We can’t discuss them properly here so please come and debate it somewhere that we can.[[User:SteveH|SteveH]] 16:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::: I've answered this a couple of times before. Search the "Kel's substanceless rants about me" section above for the phrase "For the information of". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

=== It's not blue either ===
It actually looks like [http://www.oztion.com.au/oa/oa_previewpic.aspx?itemid=6061232&picnum=1&#pic this] (although that's only one of a few in the house).

When I was conceived, the information in my DNA was a combination of a subset of each of my parents' DNA. That is, all the information for skin, nerves, marrow, toes, etc. ''already existed''. Nothing ''new'' was added when I was conceived (although I wouldn't have minded if I gained the ability to fly, for example!).

As the [[information]] article says, "Information is transmitted by means of symbols which are usually arbitrary and only carry information because the receiver of the information understands the conventions of the symbols". DNA is such a code of arbitrary symbols. River beds and moraines are not.

In another call, I'm considered unreasonable simply for ideological reasons: I'm a YEC, so ''by definition'' I'm unreasonable, because the people who consider YEC unreasonable have their own view they'd rather believe. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== obama talk page is damaged ==

could you look at this . I posted to aschlaflys talk page too, several versions seem bad. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Duane Gish Monthly Conservapedia award - awarded monthly to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense ==

[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]] is likely to soon have an [[Conservapedia:Awards|Conservapedia Award]] named in his honor.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#In_2009_have_monthly_Duane_Gish_awards] If the award is instituted, it will be awarded monthly to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense.]]
I am rooting for you to win in January PJR. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Howdy==
Hey Phillip, just saying hello. Looking forward to working with you again in the greater service of truth, wherever it is found.--[[user:TomMoore1|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore1|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

== Good news from creation scientist Dr. [[Duane Gish]] ==

Today I received Dr. Duane Gish's approval to have a monthly award named in his honor to the Conservapedia editor who is the most prodigious editor when it comes to refutation of evolutionary nonsense. I think it may be likely for Conservapedia to have such an award. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

and thank you for being here at Conservapedia!
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:18, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Question ==

You seem to be one of the best speakers here when it comes to questions about the Bible and Christianity

One of the reasons that I consider myself an agnostic is because I have a great believe in personal responsibility (if I screw up it is on me and no one else) and in some places the Bible seems to agree with that such as Ezekiel 18:20:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

But then you have the entire concept of original sin in which ALL of Adam's descendants (not just has sons but his greatgreatgreatgreat.....grandsons) are punished until and unless they are willing to let someone else be punished for a crime they had nothing to do with (this is my understanding that Jesus's crucifixion served as a way of wiping away the sin of Adam in those who have accepted him).

I see personal responsibility as a very important and conservative trait and I have never heard a good explanation as to first why I should be held accountable for something an distant ancestor of mine did and second why someone else would be able to take the punishment for me if I was accountable (most of the time I just get something along the lines of "mysterious ways")

Thanks in advance. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

:If you don't mind my injecting myself here I will give part of an answer. When Adam was created, he was by nature pure, without sin. When he sinned, mankind fell. Human nature is now fallen. When you are born, you already have the sinful nature. However, that is not what condemns you. It is the sin that you commit. Because of Adam's sin, his offspring are born with a fallen nature. Because of the fallen nature, they commit sins of their own, which is why they deserve hell. sorry if my answer is kinda hard to understand. I am just trying to give a quick answer because I don't have time to give a long one. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 18:48, 23 December 2008 (EST)

: WillB, as Tim said, as well as inheriting a sin nature, we have ''all'' sinned, so we are all ''personally'' responsible.
: We live in a world in which people suffer the consequences of others' actions. If a mugger stabs you, you are injured (and might die), through no fault of your own. That's simply the way things are, because we were designed to live in a society, interacting with others. If your king/emperor/president/prime minister declares war, then ''you'' are at war also, because the country's leader speaks on behalf of all his citizens. If you employer makes a bad business decision that means that the business fails, you lose your job because of his decision. Adam was the "federal head" of the human race; his decision affects all of us. But we are also personally responsible, because we have all sinned.
: If your young child throws a rock and breaks a neighbour's window, do you insist on him paying for it to be fixed, or pay it yourself? Sure, you might punish him yourself, perhaps by withholding his pocket money for a while, but chances are you will pay for the repair of the window yourself, partly because you love him, and partly because paying for it is beyond his means.
: If your brother incurs a fine and can't pay, but you can, would you pay it for him? Would the authorities care if you did? No. Paying someone else's penalty is a well-accepted principle.
: I heard a story once about a judge in a small town, who had brought before him a person charged with a crime. The person was a friend, and the judge was faced with a dilemma: If he let the friend of lightly, he could accused of going soft on a friend. But if he imposed the highest possible fine, he knew that his friend would be unable to pay. No other judge was available, so he couldn't pass the case on to someone else. His solution was to impose the highest possible fine, and pay the fine himself. That's similar to what God has done. He has imposed the highest possible penalty, and paid it himself.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Sorry to bother you.... ==

Not quite sure how one gets the attention of an admin; so sorry if this isn't the done thing.
The article on [[Bromine]] is currently a total farce that has somehow slipped through the net. When I tried to correct it, my corrections were reverted. Obviously, I don't want to get drawn into an edit war, but the article as it stands is a fairly unbelievable and embarrasing page.. Is there a policy for what to do in these situations? My apologies again; I'm relatively new to the site. Many thanks, [[User:PeterWinchester|PeterWinchester]] 12:31, 28 December 2008 (EST)
:Clamscrubbification? Yeah, it was reverted by a parodist. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== On the move and I hope you win the Dr. Duane Gish award in January ==

[[Image:Cheetah-02-june.gif‎|thumb|475px|right]]PJR, I just wanted you to know that the creation science supporters are definitely [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxFArfwpjPU on the move] when it comes to their efforts on the internet and they are ready to make some kills! By the way, I certainly hope you win the Dr. Duane Gish award in January. {{unsigned|Conservative}}

== You might want to tell your evolutionists friends that...... ==

[[Image:16cclock1.gif‎|thumb|150px|left]]PJR, you might want to tell your evolutionists friends that Operation Afterburner and Operation Flying Fortresses are soon coming to the internet and it is not going to be pretty for the evolutionary paradigm on the internet. {{unsigned|Conservative}}

== PJR, did you know that...... ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlxeTsoD8TA&feature=related PJR, did you know that creationists and creation scientists are going to be coming after the false paradigm or evolution on the internet and in much bigger ways than in the past?] I can hardly wait because it is going to be exciting. You probably know that it was probably the creationist Edward Blythe who posited the idea of natural selection before Darwin. I have a feeling it may be very hard for the evolutionary paradigm to compete on the internet in the future as it is a rather unfit paradigm. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, PJR! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,''' 
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;''' 
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,''' 
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:44, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks! :P==

yay!!! You're the best! xD [[User:Ema|♥♥♥Ema♥♥♥]] 18:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== ...Twas all I could salvage ==

'''I tried to get the actual essay back too, but it wasn't saved up in my cookies or anything. I did manage to save the talk page if you have any interest or inclination in continuing the discourse''':

It seems to me a common problem with this debate (the origin debate) is that so few are actually qualified enough (on either side) to actually speak accurately on the subject. I for one am no scientist: I am at best a sub-par philosopher with trivial knowledge of the sciences. I can, however, based on my experiences both in classrooms; internet chatrooms dedicated to the subject; witty banter amongst those whose interest is the subject, and finally with what common sense I am able to scrounge up, say that a little bit of knowledge goes a long long way.

I do not mean knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any of the other specific hard science; I speak of science itself.

Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge; discovering how things work (why is not a question science can answer, and it is perhaps a question not meant for science to answer) within the larger whole. This is why we no longer are married to the idea of the interstellar firmament, or why we no longer view the idea of a vacuum as ludicrous, or why we no longer laugh at the idea of infinity. If it was the case, that science need be so rigid that any change or apparent contradiction destroyed science, then science would have been extinct thousands of years ago.

This is why the notions of Big Science is so inane: nigh on every scientist is pursuing knowledge, pure knowledge. When something is conjectured it is ruthlessly investigated; often filleted before the very eyes of the person who first asserted it; if there is truth to be found this is absorbed into the greater whole of science, and anything not able to stand within the eye of scrutiny is discarded. This is not a process, however, akin to ordering a pizza; it can take decades before scientists have discovered the truth or falsity of an idea. Just see Newtonian Physics: despite two centuries of constant verification, Newton's ideas were found less than adequate as our knowledge base expanded. This did not suddenly undermine the idea of gravity, the idea of F=MA, or the idea of inertia; on the contrary these ideas remained and will remain for some time, but the details of their functions and nature have changed over the years.

The tree of life is a primitive idea Darwin devised to make his theory more sensible; it does no good to have an idea (there is such a thing as the supernatural, things change over time) if you lack a framework for making your idea understood. How is it anyone can fault science for the things it does not yet know? How is it science can be faulted for growing out of the shackles of fallacy and ignorance when the time is apt?

When it comes to the origins debate, it is important to realize that science is no meager creature: there are many many many many branches of science that all come together to form as complete a picture of our universe as is possible. That Science has discovered an aspect of itself that needs tweaking is as it should be; do we really want to go back to the age of Humors? That Darwin's sketch has proven to be less than adequate should then not be surprising. It should also not be surprising to find out in 300 years that everything we currently know is inadequate: this has been the case for as long as humanity has had the capacity to write.

The same goes for religion that the ignorant on the other side so virulently attack: how often have you seen a single verse taken from the Bible, out of context from the greater whole, so that (if you had not known better) the entire Christian religion could be nothing more than a sham? In as much as the ignorant ought not make sweeping generalizations about religion; speak of it with authority that they do not have, or lead others into the abyss of ignorance with their pronouncements, nor ought anyone speak of science with authority that is not a scientist.

Should a Muslim instruct Christians? Should a Biologist instruct Chemists? Certainly on these points, you would agree that speaking outside the realm of your expertise under the presumption of authority is a folly that makes fools of us all.

As it is topical to forestry, it seems now we will have a web of life framework to work with instead of a tree, but within a few centuries (if the web idea proves to be more valid than a tree within the immediate future) this may again change. This has not effected the main idea.

Things change over time. This is the central tenet of evolution. The tree is nothing more than a frame of reference in which to view and investigate these changes. As the article points out, biology is far less ordered (tree like) than we initially believed; genetic material flies everywhere between taxa without rhyme or reason. Had Darwin been aware of this, no doubt he would have drawn a web instead, and this entire discussion would be moot.

"After considering the evidence, we have discovered our prior held assumptions to be flawed. With what we have recently learned, we now have a new understanding; an understanding we shall investigate with more vigor than the last!" Says the Scientist.

What do /you/ say in response to the Scientists self-criticism and open mindedness? Does it not border on: "You were wrong, so I must be right. You have looked into yourself and found a speck disfiguring your eye, and what a speck it is! Had you only listened to me, that you would have never found a speck to begin with."

Science is a continuous process of self-correction. The tree is an example of such. That there is even less order does not destroy evolution in as much as God eluding the eyes of the Astronomer does not make Jesus any less real. Science ought not be damned for admitting its fallibility and trying to correct itself. Is this not the proper path for all Christians? the admittance of inadequacy before God, and pursuing a path of self improvement not only for the good of the one but for the good of the whole?

For now I believe I have said all I can as it pertains to the criticism of science and evolution.

Insofar as it pertains to design:

If design was so self-evident does it not follow that Science would follow that path? If the truth of God's creation was written about every surface of this world would it not have already been discovered and accepted by all who cast their gaze upon it? Intelligent Design can be labeled as a valid theory, initially. At the start both it and evolution may stand on equal ground. They both utilize the same method for external investigation, so here to may they be equal: a new particle is a testament to the complexity and perfection of God's creation for the Designer; to the evolutionist it is a testament to the complexity and perfection of the understanding. Where then do we find difference?

The evolutionist owns a mirror, the designer does not.

There is no aspect of science beyond questioning; if it is possible to to subject something in science to inquiry, then it is. Things that are not questionable are not suddenly locked up in some ivory tower, protected from the spear of truth: the perfection of what it thought perfect is as questioned as the subject is, burning in the back of the scientists mind. If it were the case that evolution is false, then science will find the requisite evidence; it will not be because the ignorant said that evolution was wrong, it will be because science has proven evolution wrong.

It is in this instance we discover where Intelligent Design falls short of actual science: the fact that there is a designer is not questionable. The designer is so central to intelligent design, that without it you are left with nothing more than a methodology of inquiry distinct from proper science in name and in name only.

Whereas science seeks to maximize the scope of its knowledge in all possible venues, Intelligent Design imposes a limit on itself. One seeks as complete an understanding as is within our capacity to know it, the other does not dare reach that far. There is an aspect of design that is never investigated, that can never be investigated, so that understanding in that aspect is limited to the whims of the arbitrary.

If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? Jirby 13:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)

:Jirby,
:I don't have any real disagreement with your first three paragraphs, but will add that there are very few people who are qualified to speak accurately on the origins debate. This is simply because it covers such a broad range of disciplines, covering, as it does, the origins of "life, the universe, and everything", to borrow from Hitchhiker's Guide. Scientists usually specialise in very narrow subjects, and are often as ignorant of the rest of science as the average layman. It has appeared to me and others that the vast majority of scientists who believe evolution do so on faith, because their own area of expertise either has no bearing on it or doesn't support it. This was apparent in many of the debates which Duane Gish took part in, as many of his opponents argued for evolution from areas of science other than their own, suggesting that they realised that their own area did not provide support for evolution, but (truly) believed that other areas of science did.

:Your argument against the idea of "Big Science" doesn't really stack up, however. For one thing, the picture you paint of scientists being totally objective in their pursuit of pure knowledge regardless of where it leads is simply not true. Scientists are human too, and have their own subjective opinions, fallibilities, motives of making money or gaining fame, and so on, including being subject to peer pressure. Secondly, that science might eventually overturn or update an incorrect or inadequate idea doesn't mean that in the meantime there is no pressure to conform, and there's not a "ruling paradigm" into which scientific explanations must fit.

:"How is it anyone can fault science for the things it does not yet know?": Nobody is doing that. I for one am not faulting "science". I'm faulting evolution, which I don't consider to be good science anyway. Secondly, I'm not faulting scientists for not knowing, but for claiming that they do know.

:"...nor ought anyone speak of science with authority that is not a scientist.": My first response is that one can be an authority without having a formal qualification to say so. I believe that I can speak with some authority on the subject, as I have been (informally) studying it for over 30 years. My second response to this is that many creationists are scientists, so can speak with the authority that you say should be required. My third response is question how far you take this. Can a creationary scientist speak with authority about evolution? Can an evolutionary scientist speak with authority about creation?

:"Things change over time. This is the central tenet of evolution.": No, that is not the central tenet of evolution. Even creationists accept that things change over time. The disagreement is over things like how much change. A central tenet of evolution is that everything has descended from a universal common ancestor, for example. I might add that this is one of the points in the Definition of evolution article that I linked to, that adequate definitions are crucial, yet here you are giving a definition of evolution that is so broad that it becomes meaningless.

:Much of the rest of your response ignores my essay. For example, I question whether the mantra of "it's only a minor change" is really correct, and give reasons why it is not, but your response does not argue that it is minor; instead, it simply repeats the mantra. You also falsely put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I even hint at science itself being damned, or even criticised for trying to correct itself. This is a straw-man argument you are making.

:"If design was so self-evident does it not follow that Science would follow that path?": Your first problem is again that you believe that scientists are totally objective, infallible, researchers, with no religious or philosophical motives. Your second problem is that you ignore that design is so self-evident that scientists routinely speak of the "design" of living things, and you have people such as Richard Dawkins writing books to explain why this "apparent" design isn't really design. So yes, it is self-evident, but scientists with religious motives (i.e. opposed to God) reject it anyway.

:"There is no aspect of science beyond questioning...": Except evolution, it seems. The hypothesis as a whole, that is, although individual aspects are questioned, as long as they don't risk discarding evolution itself.

:"If it were the case that evolution is false, then science will find the requisite evidence; it will not be because the ignorant said that evolution was wrong, it will be because science has proven evolution wrong.": This is another example of something I mentioned in my essay: refusing to admit that creationists can also be scientists. You are implicitly calling creationary scientists "ignorant", and excluding them from science.

:"...Intelligent Design falls short of actual science: the fact that there is a designer is not questionable.": No, you misrepresent ID. ID (as distinct from creationism) does not start with an unquestionable designer. It concludes that there is a designer, from the evidence.
:"...Intelligent Design imposes a limit on itself.": I've just answered that, and you overlook that evolutionary science imposes the sort of limit that you accuse ID of. As I showed in my essay, many (evolutionary) scientists exclude God a priori, and indeed you basically argue that it should. That is a clear case of imposing a limit that you overlook and then accuse others of doing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.

:"If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? ": The one that doesn't impose an arbitrary limit: Intelligent Design. ID doesn't say that everything was designed. It says that the evidence shows that some things were. Evolution, on the other hand, says that nothing was designed, thus imposing an arbitrary limit. To put it another way, if science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if God really did create the world and life, why shouldn't science acknowledge that? Why arbitrarily exclude it from consideration?

:Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply, but I hope you now see that things were not completely as you made them out to be.
:Philip J. Rayment 17:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)

:: The essay itself was in my cache, so I'll repost both tonight. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:05, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::: Well, it wasn't that night, but they are reposted now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:35, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Noah's Ark==

Thanks for unlocking! I've got some really good info in response to criticisms. God bless :) [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 15:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: You're welcome. Don't disappoint me! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:03, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Permission to upload/skip captcha ==

I'm writing to you because you responded to my question on the Help Index talk page. I noticed you're a sysop so you might be able to help me. I'm trying to get the appropriate account permissions so that I can upload images and skip the captchas when editing (it's really annoying). I know you guys are skeptical about giving out rights, but I hope it's obvious I'm not here to cause trouble. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:56, 1 February 2009 (EST)
: Sorry it's taken a while to respond, but my page has been unreadable for a while. I'm afraid, though, that it's a bit soon for me to be supporting you on this. Keep up the good work, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Fires ==

Philip,

I hope all is well with you and yours at this terrible time.

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:14, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:Are you anywhere near the fires? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 17:15, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=621279] At least his editing the information there indicates Philip is personally unscathed, so far. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::Glad to see you're alright, mate. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)

My lack of recent editing is due to my computer breaking down. It's working again now, but the modem still isn't. I'm typing this at work.

The fires in the Bunyip State Forest in Gippsland, particularly those at Tonimbuk[http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6520,00.html#9_0], are only about 25 minutes from where I live. We've smelt the smoke in the air. Smaller fires at Narre Warren (outer Melbourne suburb) were only about 15 minutes away (in the opposite direction). On the weekend, police closed all roads east of where I live because of the fires in Gippsland[http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6520,00.html#7_0]. But where I live has not been and is not under threat.

However, the fires have also brought back memories of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_fires Ash Wednesday fires] in 1983 in which I lost virtually everything I owned. Nevertheless, the thing that upset me the most then were those that lost loved ones (which fortunately was not the case with our family), and that is again what is most upsetting. A family friend's brother is <s>missing, probably</s> dead[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25046496-5018723,00.html], at Kinglake.

I'm happy to discuss the situation more, if anyone would like.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Fire ==

I hope you are quiet far from the fire. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)
: See section above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:: I am sure all of us are glad you and your family are fine. God bless you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:12, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:::Likewise, I am glad to see that you are well. You and yours have been in my thoughts, watching the horrific visuals on TV. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 04:11, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== Favor (Could you Block a User) ==

Hey Philip! Glad to see you on; would you mind doing e a quick favor and block [[User:LarryKrikston]] for his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=622704&oldid=620669 vandalism (diff)] on the [[Conservapedia]] article? Thanks so much mate.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)
:Nevermind- it's been taken care of - thanks anyway--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== Vandal ==

Please stop Conservativedude, who just vandalized an essay. [[User:ReneeStJ|ReneeStJ]] 21:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)
: I don't consider that vandalism, but I've given him a warning. Let's see how he goes from here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==Use of Categories==
Can you comment on the use of Categories, in relation to the discussion on [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|this talk page]]? --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 10:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Petroleum ==

Petroleum "vandal work"

Could you please explain [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Petroleum&diff=prev&oldid=627098 this edit and edit comment]?

: Seems to be a mistake. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Contribs==
Hi Philip, since you've been a sysop so long, I want to include you in the [[Conservapedia]] article's "Influential Users." How would you summarize your contributions for that? Thanks! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)
: I'd rather leave it to others to do that, rather than toot my own horn. You could have a look at my user page's list of articles to get an idea of what I've done including what I've initiated. You could also ask some of the other administrators, as well as some non-administrators who have been or were around a long time (and who deserve mentions in the article also) such as [[user:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]], [[user:BrianCo|BrianCo]], [[user:Iduan|Iduan]], and [[user:Arizaphale|Arizaphale]] (sorry to any I've overlooked). If you have any ''specific'' questions that you think I'd be the best one to answer, please feel free to ask. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:: Good idea AddisonDM; He deserves to be there! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 07:50, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Hell question ==

Hi Philip - I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate to ask on the 'Where is Hell' page, but there's quite a mix of voices there at the moment and so I thought I'd avoid confusing things. Happy to move back there if you'd prefer.

I have quite a short hell-related question. Regardless of whether the punishment in hell is 'seperation from God' or active torture, presumably it is something deeply unpleasant that is much worse than anything on Earth, and is eternal. How can it be just for there to be ''infinite'' punishment for sins committed in a ''finite'' space of time? [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:43, 21 February 2009 (EST)
: Some have said that it's because sin is against an infinitely-good God, so therefore it's appropriate for the punishment to be infinite. J. P. Holding takes a different view, which you read about [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hello.html here].
: Even where we can't find answers that convince us to questions like this, we need to keep in mind that God will do the right thing: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). This does not mean that we should not question and try to understand. But it does mean that we are not in a position to judge the righteousness of God, when God is the source of righteousness. Whatever God does ''will'' be the right and fair and just thing, even if we have trouble understanding it now.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Answering that annoying telephone ==

I see that the sock drawer's butler is trying to call me. Okay, time for some responses.

I'm confident I'm on good ground when the sock drawer "rebuttals" to my comments concentrate on almost everything except the arguments themselves. And when the "rebuttals" are self-contradictory.

For example, I'm chastised for not accepting what an "actual historian" says and for "quote min[ing]" CreationOnTheWeb.com, and told to "think for [my]self". In other words, rather than counter an "actual historian" with quotes from ''other'' experts, I'm supposed to argue with one hand tied behind my back, and only argue with my own opinion!

Then there's the whole attack-the-source-rather-than-the-argument fallacy regarding my use of quotes from CreationOnTheWeb. Again, a "rebuttal" when there is no rebuttal. Further, I've already answered this accusation in my response to Kels at the top of this page.

And to suggest, ''without any evidence whatsoever'', that CreationOnTheWeb is not intellectually honest, is nothing more that throwing mud and hoping some sticks.

Then there's the attempt to characterise my use of CreationOnTheWeb as "one source", despite that source quoting ''numerous'' sources. And the claim is that ''they'' are intellectually dishonest! And why should I want to limit myself to only listening to the most qualified person on Conservapedia, when I can also listen to other—in some cases ''more''—qualified people?

Think of it this way. If I had, instead of obtaining those quotes all from the one website, looked up the original sources and cited them instead of the creationist website, would it have affected the strength of my argument? Not at all. I would still be quoting the same people and making the same argument; only my direct source has changed.

After again misrepresenting my quotes as being all "from a creationist website", the butler then "quotemines" ''one'' of my four quotes, ignoring the others. (He perhaps seems to be saying that he's just started with the first one, but in fact he's picked on the second one.) And what's his argument against this quote? Merely that he can't find out much about the author of it! He even tries to make a big deal about whether Hickman's name is Robert or Richard, despite the only reference I can find to a "Robert Hickman" being one reference on a discussion forum! Every other reference is to "R" or "Richard", so that hardly seems to be an issue. True, he does make the point that without knowing anything about the author it's hard to assess the value of his comments, but then again, Hickman was quoted by a respectable researcher.

In other criticism of me by a few others (including Kels, who I responded to at the top of this page but who refused to admit her errors beyond retracting a claim of me lying; yet ''I'm'' accused of being unwilling to admit when I'm wrong!), my comments (to quote one person who nicely summed up the comments of several), "... are well thought out, articulate and sensible... until someone mention YEC, than he becomes like the hulk (but instead of transforming into an awesome green monster, he becomes a creationist retard)." (second ellipsis in original). Yet my critics offer absolutely no evidence of this! It seems rather, that I'm a good bloke when I'm challenging others on things that the inhabitants of the sock draw agree with me on, but a retard when I'm defending creation. So what is it really? Do I somehow change my style of argument when I'm defending creation? Am I no longer articulate? Are my arguments no longer well thought out? Do I become uncivil when I'm defending creation? Do I block rather than discuss when I'm defending creation? Or is it really a case of me being a "retard", a "first-class-moron", a "hatemonger" (coming from someone obviously ''hates'' creationists!), a "profoundly stupid man", ''simply because I believe something that they strongly disagree with''! No, it's not that I demonstrate stupidity. It's that I'm defending something that they hate with a passion. That's all. This shows a total lack of ability to make a sane judgment on, for example, my intelligence. It's not really my intelligence (for example) that they have a problem with. ''It's my views''. Yet they impugn my ''intelligence'' because they disagree with ''my views''.

And Kels shows that she's into making things up about me. "So long as it's his denomination, of course." I have been involved with churches of a number of different denominations, as well as taken part in services of several more. I am most definitely ''not'' a single-denomination person, and I know that I've written about this elsewhere. Whilst Kels may not have seen me say that before, the point is that nowhere have I ever given any indication whatsoever that I have any exclusive loyalty to a particular denomination. So Kels' comment is nothing more than an invention. But of course it's okay for anti-creationists/anti-Christians to simply invent false accusations, isn't it? So I won't hold my breath waiting for a retraction and apology.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:Reading these comments without understanding much of the context is confusing, but I do feel that the following statement bears closer analysis:
::"Think of it this way. If I had, instead of obtaining those quotes all from the one website, looked up the original sources and cited them instead of the creationist website, would it have affected the strength of my argument? Not at all. I would still be quoting the same people and making the same argument; only my direct source has changed."
:I would argue that it does affect the strength of your argument. Analysis based on original sources is always better than analysis based on secondhand reports. Perhaps the quotes that you gave are accurate, and are true representations of the opinions of the writers. Or perhaps they are frankly inaccurate or have been taken out of context in a way which totally alters their meaning. Perhaps the sentences before and after the quoted ones refer to the authors' having gotten their information directly from space aliens or through drug-induced astral projection. I have seen examples on this website of frankly fictional information from 'trusted' sources being repeated as historical truth by nonvandals, and I have seen other examples of scientific results dismissed based on second-or third-hand press reports rather than a critical reading of the papers themselves. Nobody expects a PhD thesis-level amount of historical research before drawing a conclusion, but in the era of the Internet and easy access to primary sources, it amounts to intellectual laziness to simply parrot the arguments of others without some minimum of 'due diligence'.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 14:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:: Sorry for the lack of context, but if you don't realise, ''part'' of the context is a discussion on the main talk page, primarily with RJJensen.
:: There was no "analysis based on secondhand reports". I was simply providing a verbatim quote that came from a secondary source rather than the primary one. This is a quite-acceptable thing to do, especially if it's clear that the source is secondary. Further, the readily-available (online and linked) secondary source referenced the primary sources. So the ''only'' room for doubt is whether the secondary source quoted the original authors accurately and fairly
:: However, the argument actually carries more weight by me quoting the secondary source. Which of the following would you be more likely to trust?
::# An academic in a peer-reviewed journal?
::# Me, a non-academic writing on a Wiki talk page?
:: As I provided a direct link to the on-line secondary source, then you don't have to rely on No. 2 (me), but instead on No. 1. If I'd directly quoted the original, then you would be relying on No. 2.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

With one exception which I'll briefly discuss below, the denizens of the sock drawer essentially ignored the arguments I provided above and threw around a whole stack of new allegations, including describing me in such a way that I wouldn't have recognised me if they hadn't said who they were talking about. There was more of that invention that I talked about above (which the inventor of didn't even have the decency to admit she was wrong about). Further, the same inventor is a liar herself. But unlike her, I can and will provide evidence. She had previously accused me and Creation Ministries of being liars, but despite me challenging her to back up the accusation, she totally failed to do so (see section at the top of this page. Only when some others on that site chastised her for lying (e.g. "Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive.") did she retract the claim (clearly showing that she ''had no evidence''). But that retraction is now exposed as a lie itself, because she has again made the accusation! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Hypocrisy, thy name is Kels!

The one half-decent response to my comments above were from the butler (sorry, ''gentleman's gentleman''). Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to answer it in detail and this is not the best place to do so, but I'll give a brief response to some points. (P.S. oops... and an extended response to one.)
* My reply to Brossa above partly answers the butler (sorry, but that's shorter than "gentleman's gentleman").
* He seems to think that creationists have an axe to grind (in knocking evolution), but that evolutionists don't (in defending evolution).
* He criticises the Wilder-Smith quote by throwing mud at the source, but the mud doesn't stick. (He said, "The third is perhaps even worse, it cites the autobiography of the wife of the creationist who perpetuated the Paluxy tracks hoax.".) Here's the information that he didn't tell you or got wrong by relying on biased resources:
** Beate Wilder-Smith was not just the wife of a creationist. She was someone who lived in Nazi Germany, so is writing from first-hand experience.
** Her husband is most definitely ''not'' "the creationist who perpetuated" the Paluxy tracks claims. The butler appears to have gotten his information from Wikipedia, which is flatly wrong in what it says. Wikipedia says of Arthur Wilder-Smith (AWS): "In 1965 he visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together."
*** According to Wikipedia's source (the hardly-reliable Talk.Origins), AWS "hailed the claim" of a supposedly-human tooth found there. ''Perhaps'' he did visit, but WP's source doesn't say that. Perhaps he briefly "promoted" the claim also, but even that's drawing a bow from WP's source.
*** That the claims of dinosaur and human footprints existed together has never been proved wrong. WP is promoting a POV, despite its policy. (I'll add that neither are the claims themselves proved, and creationists now say that the claims should not be made. So it's an open question, not a settled one as WP puts it.)
*** WP's source doesn't discuss the footprints, but a separate claim of a tooth.
*** WP is simply wrong to claim that the footprints were forged, let alone by creationists, and it's source reference doesn't claim that either. The issue is one of identification (are some of the footprints human or not), not one of forgery. In fact the forgery claim has been unequivocally proved to be incorrect.
** There are no grounds whatsoever for claiming that AWS "perpetuated" the claims.
** It is simply wrong to claim that AWS was ''the'' creationist who perpetuated the claims.
** Per my comments about WP, it is wrong to refer to the claims of human tracks as a hoax.
** AWS was actually a highly-respected and popular triple-doctorate scientist with a very impressive list of achievements. (WP's article on him is nothing more than a disgraceful smear job.)
Some of that is irrelevant to the main discussion, but the butler obviously thought it relevant to mention, which just goes to show how irrelevant his criticisms are.

The butler expressed an interest in further conversation. If he wishes to do so by e-mail, he can post a request for my e-mail address, as there are several others there who have my address, and I hereby give them permission to pass it on to him (by e-mail or etc., not by posting it publicly).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Conservapedia]] Article==
Philip, HelpJazz was a vandal, we know that. I'm going to remove him from the list. I believe he was at the "other website" too. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
: AddisonDM, what is your evidence that he was a vandal? As for being at the other website, so have others from here, including former and current administrators, including TK. That in itself is hardly a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::Have some self respect. The owner of this site disagrees with you, very obviously. What a petty little bully you have become, stomping your foot and telling the rest of us we are wrong. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:28, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:::I'm new around here. I probably shouldn't be stepping on people's toes. Maybe I should MMOB. I feel compelled to say, however, that the etiquette guideline about avoiding personal remarks has been utterly disregarded here. [[User:FranL|FranL]] 13:29, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:::: I see that TK had the last word by blocking you for having the last word. As for his comments, he's wrong, but I know from experience that it's useless to point out how. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: I too would like to see the evidence that HelpJazz was a vandal. Addison, you can send via email if you don't want it in public. I have an account on RW as well. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]][[User_talk:CPWebmaster|Talk]] 20:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== "Beavis & Butt-head" article stuck ==

I just created(?) an article called "Beavis & Butt-head"

The article is inaccessible and redirects to a nonexistent "Beavis"

Let me know if the article exists, if I should replace the ampersand with "and" etc. Thanks [[User:Danq|danq]] 21:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:Sorry to "butt" in, but the problem lies in the '&' in the title. It causes fits with the wiki formatting. If you can, copy and paste the article into [[Beavis and Butt-head]], and have a sysop delte the bad page. That should fix the problem. I'd do it myself, but then you wouldn't get credit for creating the article. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:: Don't create a new one; I'll move it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:: Done. I thought that we had solve this problem, though. It looks like it has returned. !!!!

== Biblical Question ==

I will be blocked soon because of my edits at The Other Site, but I just have a question for you. Believe it or not, I *am* a Christian who just happens to disagree with 90% of CP's views. I never vandalized CP, but only spoke up against what I found to be unfair and more importantly, un-Christian behavior. I was blocked for posting on that site but I have never done anything to harm CP's ''Christian'' views. I do admire and respect everything you stand for and therefore I know if there's someone who can/willing to answer me on this, it's you.

With that out of the way, my question is this: When defending the literal interpretation of Christianity (usually, Creation and afterlife), the issue always finds itself back to the consistency of said literal interpretation. For example, people will bring up the verse in the Bible that tells us not to wear clothes with two different materials mixed together. As you can probably see, they will then go on to challenge: If that's not literal, and definitely not allegorical, who's to say what we accept and what we don't? Perhaps that's merely a product of those times and a custom inapplicable to today. But then those critics will also contend the same could apply for things such as pre-martial sex, etc. Please respond to this, even if I will be blocked very soon if not now. Thank you. [[User:AShore|AShore]] 00:03, 6 March 2009 (EST)

: Hmmm, it looks like your powers of prediction are not in working order. Here I am, over a week later (I've been away for a holiday (Mornington Peninsula)), and you are still not blocked!
: You appear to be confusing a number of different concepts and have a simplistic idea of what Christians believe, in line with bibliosceptical claims. Perhaps you should find out more about what Christians believe before concluding some of the things that you have. On the other hand, you were ''asking'', so I guess in a small way you were doing that.
: Christians (including creationists) who believe in the inerrancy and historical accuracy of the Bible are not "literalists" in the sense of believing that ''everything'' in the Bible is to be taken as literally true. Rather, what they believe to be literally true are the ''historical'' claims that were meant to be understood literally. So parables, metaphors, and euphemisms are taken as parables, metaphors, and euphemisms, not as literal events.
: So that raises the question, which you refer to, of how does one decide what is literal and what is not. The answer is that such things are determinable from the language and context. If someone says to you that it's "raining cats and dogs", do you ask who's to say what we accept (as literal) and what we don't? How do ''you'' determine whether that is to be taken literally or not?
: So for the Bible. By way of example, as explained in [[Creation week]], the experts (in Hebrew and the Old Testament) agree that the historical accounts of the early chapters of Genesis were meant to be understood literally. This is not because they ''want'' them to be literally true (the cited expert, like most of the others, doesn't believe it to be literally true), but because they can tell ''from the language and context'' that it was ''meant to be understood'' as literally true.
: Your other point of confusion is in conflating ''historical claims'' with ''instructions'' (laws, rules, commandments, regulations, etc.). Historical claims are either true or false, but they don't change (e.g. it can't be the case 2000 years ago that God created the world but not true in 2009). But instructions ''can'' change (laws can be rescinded).
: However, even though instructions can change, the ''reason'' for the instructions don't. So if a prohibition of pre-marital is based on the way we were designed, then that ''reason'' never changes.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Pangaea ==

Hello! About two weeks ago you said that you would rename the article that is currently titled [[Pangea]] to [[Pangaea]], which seems to be the universally preferred spelling. You noted that I should remind you if you forgot. I'm not sure if you did, but here's a brief reminder just in case... Anyway, thanks for the help! -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 01:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:42, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Wikipedia bias I've just come across ==

I'm kinda new to all this, but I thought this was something you guys should know about...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/08/wikipedia-scrubs-ayers-wright-obamas-page

{{unsigned|Logofreetv}}

: Can I suggest that you post this on the [[talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Examples of Bias in Wikipedia talk page]] if nobody else has already? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Man is not the descendant of monkey

2009-03-20T22:27:28Z

Philip J. Rayment: The question is whether or not the Bible is correct.

I'd just like to ask, who exactly claims that Mankind evolved from monkeys? I've been seeing it as "Mankind and monkeys have a common ancestor" most of the time... [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:36, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

:Yes, who? Who claims man descends from monkeys? Anybody that preaches evolution. The who is ....all secular Western cultures, most atheist-led countries. Man evolved from ape, from beasts, is just leftwing indoctrination. The result is to dehumanize man, make less than worthy, create classes and label them sub-human species. The origins of man are God and all men are created equel.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:03, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
::Could you please cite some examples? [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 21:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

People tend to use "monkey" and "ape" very generically, unlike "gorilla", "chimpanzee", and etc. which are more specific.

In a sense, Jjameson is correct in questioning the claim: evolutionists don't claim that man evolved from a monkey or ape; but that humans and apes had a common ancestor from which both evolved.

On the other hand, as "monkey" and "ape" are general terms, that supposed common ancestor, if found, although being classified as a different species by scientists, would likely be referred to by laymen as a "monkey" or "ape" anyway. So in that sense, Jpatt is correct.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

::What I find interesting is that it presupposes a worldview that somehow monkeys are "less worthy". Aren't ALL God's creations wondrous? Why must we always want to be considered "better" than all of the rest of Creation, all of which is God's work? There's an implicit arrogance there that reeks of species insecurity, in my book. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 11:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::You are lowering the value of mankind to the level of a monkey. If people are no more valuable than animals, then they can be killed when they don't do what you want. Ever eat a cheeseburger or swat a mosquito?

:::Why must we always ignore Genesis 1:28 wherein God gave us dominion over all the rest of His creation? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:01, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, no - I do not eat any animal products or byproducts, nor wear leather. And like many like me, I do actually worry about stepping on ants and the like. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I try my best and am upset when it happens. I don't wish to have dominion over other people, or animals. I want to live amongst all of God's Creation as One. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 12:51, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::What religion is that? Buddhism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::No no, I'm a (vegetarian) Anglican Christian. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 13:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::God created all of the world, but only man in His image. That's a fundamental distinction worth respecting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Doesn't that seem just a little too convenient? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: "Too convenient"? The Bible explicitly says that man was created in God's image, as Andy said. Man is the only one like this. And as Ed said, man was given dominion over the rest of creation. Man is the "federal head" of creation, so that when man sinned, ''the whole of creation'' (Romans 8:22, NIV) was 'cursed'. And for KBinbota, although it wasn't God's original intention, He specifically told us that we could eat meat (Genesis 9:3). And ants are likely not even considered 'alive' in a biblical sense (as distinct from a modern scientific sense; see [[classification system]]).
::::: So the question is not whether it's "too convenient", but whether the Bible is correct or not.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Neanderthal

2009-03-20T05:38:36Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans. */ Reply to PeterAS

'' See also [[talk:Homo neanderthalensis]].''

== Caveman ==
''Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans''

How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You need to consider the connotation of ''caveman'', not just its denotation.
:*denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
:*connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of ''homo sapiens'' and yet not really a person

:This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, I can't. I don't know enough about [[human origins]] to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good job on this, too bad it isn't going to last long.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Don't mess with this article!==

I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:

* I will only allow additions with credible references:

: Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers

: Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...

* I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the [[Dinosaur]] article

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for [[Homo]] [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Is 90% ok?
But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's this about it being under ''your'' protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
:And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS has it right, I guess. And definitely not "All articles" are open to being edited.
:::P.S. Fortunately, science is not monopolized by a religious or areligious group/worldview. Many scientists are Christians. But they do science, not religion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Some articles (too many) are locked to prevent vandalism or liberal edits, but none are limited to a single author (some essays excepted).
::::[[physical science|Origins science]] does tend to be monopolised by one religion: atheism. Even many of the Christians working in science have been bluffed into thinking atheistically.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Obviously not. And not. But this is not the place for that kind of discussion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Then why start it here? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Good question, only you know the answer. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did someone change the opening to this article? It was well written and factual. The reference to Mousterian tool tradition is accurate. Shouldn't the editor give some explanation as to why parts have been removed?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Society in anatomy ==

I see alot of items concerning society being included in the anatomy section. Could someone more wiki-savvy than I clear that up? [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Minor fix...all done[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright of images ==

What is the copyright status of the images in the article? A quick glance would suggest to me that they have simply been copied from a web-site. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This article really should be renamed Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo sapien neanderthalensis classification was largely based on Willian King's 1864 observations and conclusions that Neanderthals were very closely related to modern humans. Current research into Neanderthal DNA has revealed no evolutionary link between the two species, therefore many anthropologists tend to classfy Neanderthals as a seperate species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The Smithsonian Institution classifies neanderthal as Homo neanderthalensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't going to comment because I should be in bed by now, but would an acceptable compromise be to name the article either "Neanderthal Man" or "Neandertal Man" (there's justification for both) and then explain the scientific name(s) in the body of the article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::How does it "sidestep" it? It would still be included, and in more detail; it just wouldn't be in the title. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
:::: Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and ''possibly'' even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::He meant "genus", not "genius".--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 00:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That's a four-month-old message you are replying to. And I knew that anyway; it was my humorous way of pointing out his spelling error. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Homo neanderthalensis]] already exists here, and is protected. I suggest the articles be merged (I couldn't figure out the tag). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And I have a suggestion re:nomenclature. Since things are still being discovered and debated in the scientific community, why not call the article something like "neanderthal man" and address the naming issues there? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==History according to Creationists==
"Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons." If malnutrition was a cause of features then the features would not be passed down to their offspring. Only genetic mutation would cause this, thus speciation. Please explain this stance for as of now it A. shows that neanderthal was speciated B. that the statement is incorrect about nutrition causing the features and that they were homo sapians if they had the same nutritional avaliblity as the rest of man kind.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The claims that Neanderthals could speak exactly as modern humans is still hotly debated by physical anthropologists. Stating this as a fact is grossly misleading. In addition, many of the cranial features of neanderthals are NOT seen in modern humans. Mainly the abscence of a chin, the extreme prognathic midface, the larger brows, and the much lower cranial vault. The occipital bones protrude alot, and sport a depression caled the suprainiac fossa for the attachment of much larger neck muscles. There also exists a retromolar gap. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. CPWebmaster is pulling from the AIG website which has trouble finding empirical evidence for their claims on Neanderthal. Their mtDNA claim is refuted by what I posted below. They have not even updated to the new science evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, how do fossils prove the use of complex syntax in spoken language? Also the claim that Neanerthals used tools to create complex tools is kinda misleading as well. Neanderthals didn't make complex tools. Almost all Neanderthal lithics are in the form of scrapers, flakes, and retouch points. None of these are "complex" tools.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===mtDNA===
In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA.

In addition, the two Neandertals are fairly similar, differing from each other in 12 base pairs. The difference is greater than that usually found between pairs of modern Europeans or Asians (only 1% of whom differ in 12 or more places), but comparable to the differences between modern Africans (37% of whom differ by 12 or more).

The distance between Mezmaiskaya and a particular modern human sequence known as the reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) was 22, compared to 27 for the first Neandertal. (However, no figures are given for the minimum, average and maximum distances between Mezmaiskaya and modern humans; it is unclear whether Mezmaiskaya is in general closer to modern humans than Feldhofer is.)

The phylogenetic analyses of Ovchinnikov et al. show the two Neandertals grouped together, and separated from all modern humans. As with the first specimen, Mezmaiskaya also appears to be equidistant from all groups of modern humans, strengthening the conclusion that Neandertals are not closely related to modern Europeans.

Because this second individual was discovered about 2,500 km (1,500 miles) from the first, it provides very strong confirmation of the previous results.

The fact that its mtDNA was also fairly close to that of the first Neandertal makes it much less likely that Neandertals and the ancestors of modern humans were both part of an interbreeding population with a large amount of mtDNA genetic variation that has been mostly lost:

"In particular, these data reduce the likelihood that Neanderthals contained enough mtDNA sequence diversity to encompass modern human diversity" (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000)

Interestingly, the preservation of the Mezmaiskaya specimen appears to be much better than that of the Feldhofer specimen. It is so good, in fact, that there is a possibility that its entire mtDNA genome may be able to be sequenced, and there is even a possibility that some of its nuclear DNA may be retrievable.

mtDNA from a third Neandertal
In 2000, scientists announced the sequencing of a third Neandertal mtDNA specimen from a cave at Vindija, Croatia (Krings et al. 2000). When the three Neandertals are compared with modern humans, all three of them cluster together, and apart from all modern humans. This conclusion is reinforced by a study by Knight (2003). Knight excluded from the comparison sites in the mtDNA genome which are known to have mutated more than once, and which are therefore poor indicators of phylogenetic relationships. His study strongly confirmed earlier ones showing deeply divergent histories for modern human mtDNA lineages and the known Neandertal ones.

Like modern humans, Neandertals had low genetic diversity compared to apes. The diversity of the three Neandertal mtDNA sequences (3.73%) is lower than that of chimpanzees (14.82+/-5.7%) and gorillas (18.57+/-5.26%), and similar to that of modern humans worldwide (3.43+/-1.22%). If modern humans are sorted into continental groups, the diversity of the three Neandertals is similar to (within one standard deviation of) that for Africans, Asians, native Americans and Australian aboriginals, and Oceanians. Modern Europeans, who live in approximately the same region as the Neandertals, have less diversity than the Neandertals.

Still more Neandertal mtDNA
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.

Is the Neandertal outside the human range?
Yes.

Note that because two modern human sequences are 24 bases apart, while the smallest Neandertal/human difference is only 22, does not mean the Neandertal sequence is within the range of modern humans. To use an analogy, suppose we measured the height of 994 adult humans, and they varied from 4'8" to 6'8" (a difference of 24 inches). Suppose we then found a skeleton which was 8'6" in height. No one would claim that it fell within the modern human range because it was closer to the nearest human (22 inches) than the tallest human was from the shortest human (24 inches).

Note also that the two figures (22 and 24) are measuring very different things, making it invalid to compare the two figures. Just as the Neandertal was compared against 994 modern humans, any of those humans could be similarly compared against the other 993 humans. We could compute the minimum, average, and maximum distance from that human to the other humans, just as was done for the Neandertal. If we calculated those values for all the humans, we could then calculate minimum, average and maximum values of all the individual minima, averages and maxima, and compare those values against the equivalent values for the Neandertal.

We do not know from the Krings et al. 1997 paper the distribution of minimum distances of humans from other humans. The smallest such value is 1. The largest such value might, I suspect, be as much as 5. The same value for the Neandertal is 22, well outside the human range.

For average distances of humans to other humans, we know the average value is 8.0. The minimum average distance will be a little less; the maximum average value must be at least 12 (this can be deduced from the fact that there are two humans 24 apart) and less than 24; I would guess it might be about 16 for a highly atypical human. For the Neandertal, the value is 27, again well outside the human range.

For maximum distances, the maximum such value is 24, but for most humans, the maximum distance to any other human will be less than that. The value of 24 is highly atypical, because it is taken between the two individuals who have indepently diverged farthest from mitochondrial Eve, and is the maximum of nearly half a million (994 * 993 / 2) comparisons among modern humans. For the Neandertal, the value is 36, again well outside the human range.

In other words, for all three measurements (minimum, average and maximum distances to other humans), the Neandertal measurement is much larger than the maximum value of the same measurement from a sample of 994 modern humans, and even further from the average value. The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Respect!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==Logic==
From CPWebmaster's talk page
:<blockquote>
When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
:If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why I'm even trying to correct this article. You cannot use logic against religious conviction. No matter what we say he is still going to put a creationist slant on the article. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived? If you place any of the other sub races of Homo sapiens into the environment they survive. (This is assuming that Neanderthal came about due to the tower of Babel, like the other races of man according to YECs)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure that I follow this point, but one answer is that they did survive. There is evidence of similarities with modern humans which suggests that modern humans are, in part, descended from Neanderthals. Also, one YEC idea is that their distinctive features were due to diet and conditions, not genetics, which would suggest that they were not a separate group that died out, but are humans, and humans are still here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::I am aware this was and is considered as a possibility, but as far as I am aware the eveidence would not be aligned with this hypothesis. Despite the large number if Neanderthal remains that have been found, I seem to remember there have only ever been two examples of cross breeds, and there is no evidence that these individuals would have fertile, in the absence of quarter breeds.[[User:stevendavy]] 10:07, 21 Sep 2007 (EDT)
:::By "this hypothesis", I assume that you are referring to the idea that they interbred with humans, not the second part of my post which says that they ''are'' humans.
:::You may be correct about the evidence, but it's really an argument from silence, with so little evidence to go on. Yes, there are quite a few Neanderthal fossils, but you can only tell so much from skeletal remains and there is little DNA evidence and no other evidence that's useful for determining such things. In other words, there's also not much evidence that they were ''not'' fully human.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::::The suggestion that they were human seems extremely controversial indeed. Whilst there is some evidence the two could interbreed, they no more make them the same species as a donkey and a horse. I would suggest the suggestions about comparable size can also be compered to whether donkeys and horses would be considered the same species.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 13:30, 06 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Even secular scientists at one time (or more than once, I think) considered them human. Now that doesn't mean that it's not "extremely controversial", but it puts it in context, that the controversy is over which side of a quite fine line they fall. As for the comparison between the donkey/horse differences, I would remind you that "species" is a somewhat-artificial distinction anyway. I'm not sure of your point about the size difference between donkeys and horses, as true horses come in a range of sizes, from smaller than the average donkey to larger. Size is not a determinant of species, except in cases such as fossils where the prime determinant (interfertility) is not available. But again, the donkey/horse comparison shows that using size as a determinant can be quite misleading. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:There is an issue about the YEC diet claim, If we are to follow the YEC timeline then Humans lived in the same areas as Neanderthals at the same time so we would show a difference among all of the remains instead of a particular group. If it was based on diet and not genetics than how is what I posted above with mtDNA found in Neanderthal remains explained? Their physiology is much different than a human, not something that could come from diet (You do not get eyebrow ridges, or extra length of ribs from diet)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just to add if you and CPWebmaster claim that Neanderthal were humans then you should add them to the races article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean the [[Race]] article I presume? No, I wouldn't add them there, for the following reason. Creationists don't recognise that there are different races. We are all one race—the human race. So Neanderthals were not a different race. The article does list some "races", as they were formerly believed to be, but first, it doesn't say who believed this (I suspect an evolutionary basis), and second, for whatever reason, Neanderthals were, as far as I know, never considered as separate race, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add them to a list of what is actually a historical record. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That is the point I am making Philip. If this were the case then CPWebmaster is wrong in labeling this page as Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis. This is why it should either be Homo Neaderthalensis or just Homo Sapiens. To add the other delineator would mean that it would be a race of human.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== editing ==
By-the-by, going in and pulling the creationist part above the evolutionist part is kinda pathetic and childish.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would have to agree, it is a bit sophomoric. Not to mention the statement of taxonomic labeling.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Somebody found some talking fossils apparently.

==Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see [[First amendment]])==

Just 2 days after I wrote this article, using only reliable sources, it's already been vandalized beyond recognition, look! It even has quotes of questionable origin already!

Do we really have to have this "but creationist assert this and quote <s>mine</s> that, and the flood ..." thingy in every article, there's plenty of that on other pages.

I did not claim this article for myself, I just set some guidelines for other editors to keep it factual and respectable (most people out there aren't YECs you know!)

Why the f*ck are there no dates in the intro anymore? Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little <s>medieval</s> sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?

And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?

And it's "Homo neanderthlalensis", not "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" as in separate species, Tims is a molecular biologist, what are you?

What's wrong with writing an article according to the current scientific consensus? Sure I could make something up too, maybe even twist the facts just enough to make everything fit in with Egyptian mythology! But I chose to follow the experts instead.

If the reader is a YEC he's not gonna believe this article anyway!

AiG more credible than the Smithsonian?
Yeah, of course <s>a bunch of uneducated hillbillies</s> AiG's YECs are more credible than the Smithsonian's accredited biologists and archaeologists when it comes to science!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I agree with you. I thought this was conservapedia not YECpedia. No one has said that being a conservative means rejecting science as a whole. What CPWebmaster did would be considered vandalism if the POV was change.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add some stuff and keep it scientific, but I was reverted by the ConservativeChristianYoungEarthAntiScience Aganda. Just give up, this site is a joke anyway. The only reason I know about it is a student of mine actually used it as a source in writing a paper. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it that your information has been removed or merely that creationist viewpoints have been added as well? I hope both viewpoints are allowed to stand and I hope it is done in a way that is respectful to the work that each of you has put into the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunatly, no, the overlords have erased information that is scientific in nature and replaced it with their own ideas.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I have created separate articles now, with links to one another at the bottom: one for YECs and one for science, I will revert all creationist material on the evolutionary version, however I don't care about what's being written in the creationist version, feel free to add whatever "alternative worldviews" you want to that one!

YEC: [[Homo neanderthalensis (Creationist's view)|here]].

Evo: [[Homo neanderthalensis|here]]

:::stick with one article please. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 15:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But this one's too crappy.
And that one page would have to be called Homo neanderthalensis.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

P.S. this particular page (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) should be deleted for this to avoid confusion.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Your naming will never survive based upon how you have constructed it. You'll need to have separate sections with 'Creationist' in one title and 'Evolutionist' in the other. Also the article called 'Creationist' view appears to be merely a copy of the current article and is replete with information that does not match Creationist thought. You may wish to consider a different strategy if you wish to have any chance of success. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like it (the creationist version) in its current form you can always edit it.

Evolution is the dominant theory, the default setting, creationism is an alternative for a minority.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I am still wanting to see what CPWebmaster's logic is based on what I listed above for the genius and species of Homo Neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, these 3 pages seem to act like coupled photons: whatever you type on one talk page, instantaneously appears on the other two as well!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all."
I still want to know how a fossilized piece of bone can tell you about complex syntax. Last time I checked fossils don't talk.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note, nobody will come to an "encyclopedia" like this and search for [[Homo neanderthalensis]] or [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Instead, they'll look for [[Neanderthal]] or [[Neandertal]]. They both redirect to the 'creationist' [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Thus, MiddleMan's 'scientific' version will only be seen by a) who reads this talk page or b) from the Hominid category. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

"''And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?''". You appear to be justifying using a presumably-copyright photograph on the basis that you are unable to take your own photograph of real Neanderthals. That is not justification for using copyright photographs. And my question also pertained to the map. If the images are copyright and used without permission, they will have to go, regardless of your inability to supply an alternative. Will you do the right thing or will I delete them? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

There are lots of pics without sources on this website, yet only one the ones that hits a sore spot among YECs is removed, besides the sysop who removed it didn't say anything about copyrighting, he stated "This is nothing like Neanderthals would have looked like. in reality they looks a LOT more like aps, with curved, bent hands, etc."

Interestingly, I addressed this (sadly widespread) myth in the article itself (it's also the reason why I said 100 year old books are bad sources), so if he would just have taken the time to actually read the article...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Response in point form:
:* There being other such pictures doesn't justify these.
:* If you had brought others to my attention, I would have done the same to them. I'd invite you to now except that I gather that you are no longer around.
:* It was not because of the pictures themselves that I started questioning this; it was solely because of the copyright issue.
:* I don't know where CPWebmaster made that comment that you attribute to him; I haven't seen it, and it certainly wasn't in the edit comment for the deletion.
:As no evidence was forthcoming that there was permission to use the images, I have now deleted them from the article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== transitional fossil? ==

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end."<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki></blockquote>

A transitional fossil to what? Extinction? Somehow this seems an incorrect usage. There is no linkage from one form to another. Perhaps the following wording should be employed?

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but formed along a subsidiary branch that ended in extinction."<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki></blockquote>

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You're quit right, I changed it accordingly.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Advice to evolutionists ==

I was going to write a piece here with the title above, but because this sort of issue has come up so often, I decided to create a sub-page of my user page to hold it instead. It relates particularly to this dispute, so I urge editors here to read my comments at [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists]]. I will, however, make some further comments on this page to some specific points. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip I read and understood your points in your article. The issue I think that has to be presented is that this website claims that it is Conservative in nature not exclusively YEC. Therefore to edit strictly in a YEC POV would be falsifying the claim of the website. Even Andy has stated that this website is not specifically YEC.
::No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:So to claim that it is would be misleading. My issue with this page is the incorrect naming style used. If you are going to use scientific terminology then you need to get it right. If what CPWebmaster is true then this article should be moved under Homo sapiens. If not then he needs to correct it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for reading it.
::I wasn't suggesting editing in a YEC POV. I was pointing out that despite the YEC point of view that will not allow articles to be edited in an evolutionary POV, evolutionary editors continue to edit in an evolutionary POV rather than a more neutral POV that should (hopefully) be acceptable to both sides.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know that timelines of the earth are geological based not evolutionary based. If we were to edit on a neutral POV then the edits that CPWebmaster did would have been reverted since they strictly removed scientific data to cause the article a more creationsit POV.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Advice to Young Earth Creationists==
You've got your YEC box in my article (Homo Neanderhalensis, without the sapiens), don't you prefer it's clear presentation of creationist objections over the usual chaotic torrent of out-of-context quotes, unsound "facts" and numerous AiG links that make up most YEC sections on this site?
You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D (I still think he's nutts though), don't you understand that that single link, has, to me (and other "evolutionists"), far more value than all the quotes and AiG links in the [[Dinosaur]] article combined?

Just look at the Dinosaur article, it's a complete mess composed of contradicting sections and contradictions within sections, out-of-context-quotes, and the kind of "scientific facts" that any college freshman can debunk on a spare afternoon.
And in the end the article reads like a debate and doesn't really tell the reader anything about actual dinosaurs.
That's what I meant by "go vandalize the Dinosaur article".

If you're going to add YEC stuff, then keep it separated from the rest of the article (don't make one sentence contradict the next one), don't use quotes (no scientist uses quotes), and only add points which have a reasonable chance of surviving the debunk attempts of a college freshman, you have to know what you're talking about before posting it, if necessary, do some research on the math or the science behind it.

Don't question every scientific theory down to the very laws of physics, and don't say every theory is just a theory (you trust science when you fly on an airplane, use GPS, watch tv, and you trust scientist's calculations regarding the highly explosive chemical processes that take place under the hood of your car, don't you?)

And if you're going to question a scientific theory then be consistent, meaning you can't use other science, related to that theory, somewhere else:

- if you question carbon half lives, you also question
nuclear physic, meaning you question nuclear power, and A-bombs as well, and even question highschool chemistry.

- if you question the value of the speed of light, you question relativity and thus you can't trust your GPS system either, you'd also question quantum mechanics.

Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists (like John Hartnett, for example), and never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible.

Then, maybe YECs won't be ridiculed all the time...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:What I have seen too many times is evolutionary baseed information being removed because it isn't "factual" and at the same time the YEC sections getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know YEC isn't a "fact" either, but I rarely see any of that stuff being edited out.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::There are a number of articles with creationist views that I'm not happy with, but would have a fight on my hands if I tried altering them, so I'm not going to defend everything, but parts of your message still warrants a response.
::"''You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D''". As do lots of creationists. This sort of anti-creationist loaded language is part of the problem.
::Despite my comments above, I think the [[Dinosaur]] article is actually quite reasonable (apart from needing more information about the dinosaurs themselves). If you were still around, I'd invite you to point out ''specific'' problems, because all you've done so far is throw mud.
::"''(no scientist uses quotes)''". Incorrect.
::"''...don't say every theory is just a theory...''" I haven't seen anyone do that.
::Much of your comment on science ignores the difference between [[Physical science|operational science and origins science]].
::"''Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists... ''". What's wrong with linking to creationist web-sites with accredited scientists?
::"''never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible''". We can't use the Bible as a reference for what Christians believe? And often the best evidence is documented eye-witness testimony, which is what the Bible is, so it is often the only available evidence; why overlook it just because bibliosceptics don't like it?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans. ==

This seems a bit of a lame quote. There's no evidence to suggest that T Rex could not speak like modern humans either, should we therefore conclude that they ''could'' talk? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing that came from a suggestion that I made [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists|here]], and if you read that, you might have a better understanding of why it's worded that way. But yes, it was only an off-the-cuff suggestion on my part, and it could be improved. Do you have a suggestion that does justice to what it's trying to say? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The view that Neandertals could speak, or at least could speak in the same way modern humans can, is not held by most paleoanthropologists today. Reconstructions of Neandertal supralaryngeal vocal tracts show that they would not have been able to form many of the sounds necessary for human speech[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WKT-4K66DPN-1&_user=4421&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4421&md5=0985af742e620a16039c04e1bd073c24]. I would edit the article myself, but it appears to be locked. [[User:PeterAS|PeterAS]] 23:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

: I've removed the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags from your post, as this is a talk page and there is no <nowiki><references /></nowiki> section.
: Your linked article requires a subscription to read, so I haven't read it.
: Did you read the link in my post just above yours? It has some background to this matter. One point it mentions is that the article previously claimed that Neanderthals ''could'' talk, but evolutionary editors here questioned that on the basis of the unfeasibility of being able to determine that from skeletal remains. But when it suits them, evolutionists want to claim that you ''can'' determine such things!
: Okay, so most paleoanthropologists don't hold that Neanderthals could speak. Most are also evolutionists, so they are hardly unbiased in this matter.
: I notice, though that the paper you referenced was replying to someone else, as though there was disagreement on the issue.
: I suggest that you propose here a better wording, but one that doesn't assume the evolutionary myth, and it can be added to the article if it's reasonable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:38, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

== Still trying.... ==

Why cannot I access and view the previous versions of the articles? How big of a fit am I going to have to have? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:18, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know, I'm not having a similar problem. What exactly are you doing and what exactly are you getting? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Check my user talk. I had requested of CPAdmin1 to have a chance to review the materials he deleted before the fact. He wasn't having a bit of it. The lack of cooperation around here should be gone now, due to the example of the past two days. Evidently not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Never mind...I got it. I wanted to see this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homo_neanderthalensis]] since it got deleted and redirected without any notice or discussion. Since I don't know much of what I am doing with the technical wiki, I had to fumble around removing redirects and un-deleting pages, etc. There should be a nicer way to accommodate everyone. But then some people, they don't want to be nice. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::There ''is'' a nicer way. As long as the article is not actually deleted, but just has the content removed, you can look at any old version from the edit history; you don't have to remove redirects or anything to do that. If you need to know ''how'' to do that, I can explain further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, what I found was deleted and blanked pages, which I had to restore once I removed all the re-directs, and still the discussion seems to have been lost. I know how to blank and protect pages, Philip. I am just peeved because some other Sysop took it upon himself to delete and merge without any discussion whatsoever. Maybe I am wrong in thinking such things shouldn't happen under cover, and unilaterally, but I don't think so. Hopefully whilst I am at the office, the whole process won't be repeated, and the other pages deleted! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you had to remove the redirects and restore them just to see what was on them, but moving on, what discussion seems to have been lost? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== How many redirects? ==

I've just got to ask: How many times has Neanderthal been maliciously redirected to, say, [[User:Aschlafly]]? I never vandalize, but if I was that type it would be so tempting. :-P - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 17:32, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

*Well, why not try it and see what happens? Don't you have something more worth-while to do than Troll? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:55, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

::I already undid subtle vandalism he committed in the [[The Simpsons|"Simpsons"]] article. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 17:57, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

*Banhammered!......errr, I mean "uninvited". --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Google

2009-03-19T23:56:57Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Secular Progressive Culture */ Copyedits and rewording, removing some conjecture and poor argument.

'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]].

Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's govenment, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

Much of Google's business depends on pornography. For example, 25% of search engine requests are for pornography.<ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and [[social libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref>

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth day]], April 22, 2007.]]
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref> Google Code of Conduct "Don't be evil". On their investor relations website, it reads "It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> They are being held to that standard{{fact}} and they are missing the mark badly.

==Secular Progressive Culture==
Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making.<ref>See [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html] for a list of board members and senior staff.</ref> Google supports causes that are a radical departure from traditional america views, such as their public support of a 'no' vote for [[California]]'s [[Proposition 8]], which defined marriage as being between a husband and wife. Also in a subtle way, they favor politically-correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. They select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some of which are controversial.  As such, ''Merry Christmas'' is replaced by ''Happy Holidays''. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers 'Merry Christmas'. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a 'culturally-correct' approach.

=== Google versus Conservatives ===
Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===
The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==Google bombing ==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== Privacy Concerns==

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic Daniel Brandt to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Google

2009-03-19T23:47:58Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* History */ Who's holding them?

'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]].

Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's govenment, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

Much of Google's business depends on pornography. For example, 25% of search engine requests are for pornography.<ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and [[social libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref>

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth day]], April 22, 2007.]]
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref> Google Code of Conduct "Don't be evil". On their investor relations website, it reads "It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> They are being held to that standard{{fact}} and they are missing the mark badly.

==Secular Progressive Culture==
Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html See Board]. Google supports causes that are a radical departure from [[Traditional America]], such as their public support of [[California]]'s ''no on [[Proposition 8]]''. Also in a subtle way, they are for politically correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. Their bright minds select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some are controversial, some are for lack of observance. As such, Merry Christmas is replaced by Happy Holidays. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers Merry Christmas. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a culture-correct approach. Happy Holidays in several different languages is their point of view, rather than to offend others with their Christ worship. Google decided to name their Happy Holiday logo, cutely calling it Holiday Doodle. The birth of [[Jesus]] removed entirely from the season replaced by a doodle. [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#marissa Google VP Marrisa Mayer], doodle decider, owes America an answer or her excuse.

=== Google versus Conservatives ===
Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===
The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==Google bombing ==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== Privacy Concerns==

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic Daniel Brandt to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Communism

2009-03-19T23:42:34Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* My edits a few minutes ago */ Yes, you've been fooled by Wikipedia.

== Say something meaningful ==
I recently judged several exhibits for the national history day. These were not about Communism but instead about Adolf Hitler, though the problems they had are also here in this article about communism. The problem with all of them is that everyone thinks its sufficient to say that Hitler was evil to have said something meaningful. Obviously this is not enough. Everyone has said this there's no unique analysis in it or really an analysis at all. Its all just emotive. Likewise the problem with this article is that there really isn't much in the way of analysis. All that is said is communism bad (be verbs such as is are over rated) again and again and again. Yes there are facts and statistics and that's great but really i think you've crossed an academic line here where your no longer explaining why things are bad (or perhaps good if you were to be a communist though given the setting i find this to be unlikely) but are instead just asserting that they are along with a few statistics. What this article needs in an in depth explanation of how communism functions both theoretically and in the real world. Therese nothing here about Marx's philosophy (though the article on Marx is much better than this one). Communism means more than the Soviet Union and China. Also i think there needs to be a section on primal communism (hunter gatherers) and interpretations as to weather or not they count as a communist society.
:Primitive behaviour is strictly nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist communism we treat here. I think that the points are adequately made that the materialist, atheist and dirigiste aspects of Communism appeal to those of little natural ability and enable them to gain coercive powers to destroy freedom. Hitler and the Nazis were forged in the same mould. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:15, 26 February 2009 (EST)

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::The opposite of communism would be a state where a social class of workers do not own the means of production. Hence the opposite is capitalism. Don't confuse your personal ideology and definition of communism with that agreed upon by political scientists, philosophers, economists and the rest of people who've actually made significant study of what communism is and means. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

"Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena."

:*This is false. The concept of communism dates back to at least the 6th century BC. Marxism is a political philosophy which seeks to implement communism. Marxism is based on Marx's theory of historical materialism, a materialist conception of history based on the analsys of labour and production.

"Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the public owns the "means of production"."

:*This is true.

"In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat"."

:*This is riddled with errors, No country has had communism imposed upon it. Some countries have sought to implement communism, but invariably have become dictatorships with socialist economies. Dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT communism, and not synonymous with the nationalization of private enterprises.

{{QuoteBox|For Marx, the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Marx used the expression very infrequently and when he did employ it, he appeared to understand the word ‘dictatorship’ as meaning a concentration of power or forces rather than as a repressive situation. A different model of transition is offered in The Civil War in France (1871) based upon the experience of the Paris Commune. It stressed the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The ‘commune’ and ‘dictatorship’ models coexist uneasily in Marx's work.

:-from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics}}

This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.

:*This might be supported if a communist country actually existed, but none has existed to date . In theory, the nationalization and merger of enterprises would increase inefficiency by eliminating redundancy. With an even distribution of wealth, shortages only occur if the total production of the nation falls.

"In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls."

:*This is true, but not related to communist theory, which is what this section is actually about.

"Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see queuing)."

:*This has been true in some countries ruled by communist parties, but not all, and stands contrary to the aims and theory of communism.

"Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, and its modifications under Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any government."

:*This is true, although the use of supposedly here seems like a callous attempt to undermine the point.

"The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion."

:* This is mostly true, although you may wish to do some reading on the USSR's relationship with the orthodox church, as its considerably more nuanced than this phrase might indicate. However, this, once again, has nothing to do with communist theory.

"Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion."

:* Got any sources to support that?

"Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable Animal Farm."

:* It's not just left-wing critics. The very constitution of the USSR states that it is a socialist country, not a communist one.

"Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no incentive within the economic theory."

:* In the countries you describe as "communist," there is variation between wages of workers commensurate with ability. In a true communist society, there's no actual need for wages or money at all. This being said, you've limited yourself to the assumption that the personal accumulation of wealth is the only possible incentive in an economy.

"Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft."

:* I take it you did not actually read the quote from Marx.

{{QuoteBox|When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.}}

::Nothing is taken away, it's a change in the way property is generated.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I wish you would read my article, [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. We can cooperate better if you refrain from assuming I am arguing for something, or that I don't understand something.

I know there is a difference between Communism, the political system established in USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. - and "[[communism (stateless society)|communism]]", the stateless society envisioned and/or predicted by Marx. The present article critiques big-C Communism on account of its utter failure to achieve small-c communism. Perhaps you felt I was ignoring the difference between the two terms?

If you want to work with me on this article, I hope you will join me in being consistent about the usage of the Big-C and small-c terms. It will only confuse the reader of we fail to distinguish between political systems created by Communist Parties and Workers Parties - and the stateless ideal society envisioned by Marx that would come after the socialist states created by the parties "withered away". Do you agree that there is a difference and that we should tell the reader clearly about it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'd also argue that you should distinguish between the oppressive failure Communist states such as Stalin's USSR, and the Democratic 'diluted' Communist nations such as Cyprus and Moldova today. They don't adher to strict collectivisation, but they aim to achieve more equality of wage and status in the existing system, as they agree with the theoretical Communism. PLEASE don't go and tar them with the same brush as the oppressive USSR. -- Dollfuss.

I'm not tarring anyone with a brush, but calling a spade a spade. A government based on Communist theories deserves to be called "Communist". Quibbles about whether that government has attained the professed ideal of Communists are unrelated to the type of government.

The real point here (and the [[elephant in the living room]]) is that no Communist government has come anywhere near to "achieving communism". Hence, the old Russian joke about the securest job in the Soviet Union ("waiting for communism to be achieved").

My '''critique''' of Communism is that it has absolutely no chance of achieving its stated ideal. It espouses violence to gain control over the means of production but has no provision for how the new rulers and masters would ever be motivated to give up their control voluntarily. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Neither Cyprus nor Moldova, with ruling Communist parties, indulge in violence to achieve their aims. Saying that all Communist parties do is a generalisation and a simplification. -- Dollfuss

== My edits a few minutes ago ==

I've reverted a couple of Jjameson's edits, and here I explain why.

He removed the claim that communism was atheistic, citing in his edit comment http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fca5.html. This page doesn't, in fact, directly address that question, and I'm not sure why Jjameson thought it did. It does, however, implicitly ''support'' the claim that communism is atheistic:
{{QuoteBox|...Cabet's plan for a perfect utopian community based on the principles of evolutionary communism ... Cabet believed that environment determined human nature and that people, whom he saw as perfectible and rational, would produce a perfect society when placed in a perfect environment.}}
Evolution, believing that (only) the environment determines human nature, and that people could, without God, produce a perfect environment, are all atheistic ideas.

Jjameson was also a bit heavy-handed with the {{tl|fact}} tag, although looking through them, most of them are legitimate. So I only removed one. I hope to remove a couple more before too long, once I find a reference for a couple of quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:38, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, I was trying quickly to find a source that supported that some christians (or, for that matter, any religious people) promote Communism. The search result seemed like that supported my claim, but I had not properly read the entire article. I am curious, however, how Wikipedia can have such a lengthy article on Christian Communism[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism] without such a thing existing. Perhaps I am being fooled by Wikipedia's liberal bias?[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 19:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd say that you've been fooled by Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias! More to the point, that there might be a Christian ''version'' of communism doesn't refute that communism, as invented, is inherently atheistic. A parallel is the existence of "theistic evolution", a view that says that God created by using a method (evolution) that was designed to explain life without God being required! The mere existence of a self-contradictory point of view does not refute that the views are contradictory.
:: Communism and Christianity do, in a sense, have a lot in common, which might go some way to explaining the existence of so-called Christian communism. As I saw an atheist write many years ago (this is from memory, not a direct quote), the difference between communism and Christianity is that communism is driven by force, whereas Christianity is driven by love. That is, communists (supposedly) share their wealth because they have to, whereas Christians share their wealth because they want to. The other big difference is the result: Communism fails economically, because it takes away the incentive to work. Christian countries succeed economically (and America is the classic example (over the long term)), because there is an incentive to work.
:: Wikipedia wouldn't compliment Christianity in this way, which is why you're unlikely to learn this from them.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is Communism Atheistic In Nature? ==

Of course it is. A lack religion is fundamental to the concept of Communism/Marxism. Sources have been provided, I don't see a need to edit war over it. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Communism

2009-03-19T23:30:47Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Communism and militant atheism */ Add chinese quote.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist|atheistic]] [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-03-19T23:26:59Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Communism and militant atheism */ Another quote citation.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist|atheistic]] [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-03-19T23:21:25Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Communism and militant atheism */ Grammar and wording.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist|atheistic]] [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."{{fact}}

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-03-19T23:20:40Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Communism and militant atheism */ Give "correct" version of quote; improve reference.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist|atheistic]] [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. he coined the saying "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."{{fact}}

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-03-19T23:17:56Z

Philip J. Rayment: Again remove {{fact}} tag; this point is established in the article, and it wasn't just Marx.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist|atheistic]] [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. he coined the saying "<nowiki>[Religion]</nowiki> is the Opiate of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. ''Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right''.</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."{{fact}}

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-03-19T22:54:34Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Communism and militant atheism */ Reference a quote

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist]]ic [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. he coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the masses."{{fact}} He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."{{fact}}

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Talk:Communism

2009-03-19T22:38:35Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* My edits a few minutes ago */ new section

Communism

2009-03-19T22:32:01Z

Philip J. Rayment: Revert of a couple of changes: see talk shortly; copyedit.

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]
'''Communism''' is an [[atheist]]ic [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]", but its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society (often called "small-c communism"); each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Today, communism continues to rule over one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stands for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.{{fact}}]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. he coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the masses."{{fact}} He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."{{fact}}

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies.

China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. As a result, some consider China no longer communist, but rather an "atheistic autocracy" with a dictatorial ruling party.

One of the only remaining modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Kent Hovind

2009-03-19T22:13:48Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* References */ Change section title (already had 'References')

'''Dr. Kent Hovind''' (born 1953), called "Dr. Dino" because his expertise is in dinosaurs, is a prominent and controversial [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]].
He founded [[Creation Science Evangelism Ministry]] in 1989<ref>http://www.drdino.com/</ref> and has a doctoral degree in Christian education from [[Patriot University]].

In 2001, Hovind opened a theme park in Pensacola, Florida called [[Dinosaur Adventure Land]], filled with exhibits putting forth a case for Young Earth Creationism.

== Controversy ==

Critics of Hovind question the quality of his doctoral thesis and the academic standards of the university from which he received it, believing both to be subpar for institutions of higher learning.<ref>[http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You To Read."]</ref>

Hovind has been criticized by fellow Young Earth Creationists for repeatedly using arguments that are unsound both Biblically and scientifically.<ref>Wieland, Carl, Ham, Ken, and Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/ Maintaining Creationist Integrity] October 2002</ref>

He is currently serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.<ref>''"10 years for 'Dr. Dino'"'', Michael Stewart. Pensacola News Journal, 19 January 19, 2007</ref>
Hovind has maintained that there should have been no taxes because he runs a religious organization.

Hovind, with his son Eric Hovind, had released a set of videos titled "Answering the Critics" whereby they answered some common criticisms of themselves, usually from Internet sources. Hovind claimed he did not want to answer all the critics because he believed many critics criticize him without wanting to get any answers from him, so it was best to ignore them and continue preaching to those who really want to listen.<ref>Answering the Critics #1</ref>

== $250,000 Offer ==

Hovind is well known for his standing US$250,000 offer to anyone who can "prove evolution".<ref>http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67</ref>
The offer has gone unclaimed.
Contributors at [[Talk.origins|TalkOrigins]], a pro-evolution web-site, have pointed out that Hovind's challenge includes not just biological evolution but also [[abiogenesis]], [[cosmology]] and other things, and have claimed that the challenge is worded in a way that makes it impossible to fulfill since it requires proving the negative statement that "evolution" is the only possible explanation for the existence of life.<ref>Isaak, Mark, (Ed.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html Claim CA341], 2006</ref>

== External link ==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/KentHovind_Part1_HowOldIsTheEarth How Old Is The Earth?]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hovind, Kent}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]

Talk:Essay:Man is not the descendant of monkey

2009-03-19T14:52:48Z

Philip J. Rayment: Two ways of looking at it.

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2009-03-17T09:36:50Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* YES */ Answering JArneal.

{{debate}}

== NO ==

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

I think the nature of sin is one of the big different between creation and evolution.

Evolution doesn't really recognize sin, and see death and suffering as a part of nature and necessary process in evolution, to evolve to new species.

But bible says that death and suffering are because of sin, it is not what God wanted, and nothing nature and necessary about it.

I think Christians who still believe in evolution don't really realize the cruelty of evolution. 90% of a group have to die off in order for the rest of the 10& to "evolve".

God won't use death and suffering in His creation. And I think God is smart enough to make everything perfect in the beginning (just like what the bible says) instead of made a few amoebas and let them "evolve" over time.

For those of you who watched Dr. Kent Hovind's videos, I accept most of his views about this.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== YES ==

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict [[evolution]]. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::: On the type of text of the creation account, see [[Creation week]]. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there is no original sin, then we don't need a Saviour to save us from it. Therefore we don't need Jesus. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a last Adam. You're right; it's not central at all! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
As for this argument using the Adam and Eve story, this and the Theory of Evolution are not related. They are not alternatives of each other. The account of creation in the Bible is just that. It refers only to how things were created in the beginning. The Theory of Evolution concerns how life on earth has changed over time. If one is not satisfied with that argument, then perhaps this one: the Bible does not explain the means by which most forms of life were created by God. Is it not possible that God used evolution to further the variance of Earth's life forms? This idea is reminiscent of the ancient ways of explaining the universe: the apple falls from the tree because God wills it so. While this is still true, it has since been discovered that God created gravity, and this law of nature is most directly the cause of the apple's fall. It is most probable that God created evolution in the same way, to govern nature's life forms and the way that they change over time.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Ironheart777 11:59 (PST) 25 november

: I missed answering this earlier, so I will now, even though JArneal is no longer with us (on Conservapedia, that is).
: The evolutionary and biblical stories ''are'' alternatives, because they are incompatible. No, it is ''not'' possible that God used evolution, given that evolution requires billions of years, whilst the Bible ''[[creation week|clearly and unambiguously]]'' records that creation took six ordinary days, among other differences.
: The Bible ''does'' record how most forms of life were created: to reproduce "''after their kind''", i.e. not by becoming another kind, as evolution claims.
: Other differences are the order of creation (the Bible has birds before reptiles, for example), and that there was no death before mankind.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Trinity

2009-03-17T00:54:25Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Denials */ No evidence that references are "serious Bible scholars" (and arguments are weak), and it's not just liberals who omit it (and NIV is not "liberal").

''The following article is about the term Trinity as used in [[Christianity]]. For other uses please see: [[Trinity - other uses of the term]]''
{{Christianity}}

The [[Christianity|Christian]] '''Trinity''' consists of [[God the Father]], [[Jesus Christ|God the Son]], and God the [[Holy Spirit]], as established by the [[Nicene Creed]]. It is the three parts that make up the one God, all co-equal, and all forming one God. Although it is never made explicit in the [[Bible]], the concept of the Trinity is embraced by the [[Roman Catholic Church]], the [[Orthodox Church]], and nearly all [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations.

==Denials==
The [[Arian]]s of the 4th century denied the Trinity. They were condemned as heretics and they died out, but Arian ideas appeared in Europe after 1500. [[Isaac Newton]] was secretly an Arian. By the mid-18th century [[Unitarianism]] had emerged in England, and it spread to the U.S. by 1800. It dominated schools like Harvard College by 1820.

In the 20th century [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] do not believe in the Trinity, and see it as contradicting the commandment to have no god but the one God.<ref>Watchtower, July 2008</ref>

Some [[liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] also, wishing to impose a [[naturalism|naturalistic]] reading on Scripture, deny the Trinity in part by denying that I John 5:7-8 (KJV) (the so-called "Johannine Comma") is properly part of the Bible. However, some argue that the Johannine Comma is indeed properly part of Scripture.<ref>[http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html Defense of the Johannine Comma]</ref><ref>[http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Is is true that 1 John 5:7 ... ?]</ref> Nevertheless, many Bibles, such as the [[NIV]], omit the Johannine Comma (I John 5:7-8 (NIV)), and other evangelicals believe that the Comma should not be there and that the Trinity is apparent from other passages anyway.<ref>Holding, James Patrick, [http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html Comma Toss]</ref>

==Misconceptions of the Trinity==
[[Islam]] has taught that the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother (the [[Virgin Mary]]); however, this is not Biblical, but is taught in the Koran.

==See also==
*[[Arianism]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Image:Murillo Two Trinities.jpg]]

{{trinity}}

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Theology]]

Occam's razor

2009-03-16T23:44:40Z

Philip J. Rayment: Alternative spellings

'''Occam's razor''' or '''Ockham's razor''' is a principle that can loosely be described as ''the simplest explanation is the one that is probably correct''.

Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle]]s in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise"

This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.

Occam's razor is a ''guiding principle''. That is, it says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions ''is to be preferred'', not ''is correct''. The explanation with the fewest assumptions can turn out to be the wrong explanation.

== Illustration ==

Ockham's razor can be illustrated by the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occurred. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.

[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].

== Use by atheists ==

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>
Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

It is, however, important to note that Ockham himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle. While Occam's Razor is frequently articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>

== Use by Christians ==
The problem with the [[atheist]] example above is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life. Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption. Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption—If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against [[atheism]], and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://skepdic.com/occam.html Occam's razor] (The Skeptic's Dictionary).
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5096/ Occam’s Razor and creation/evolution] 22nd May 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan 2004

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Ontological Principles]]

Occam's razor

2009-03-16T23:42:56Z

Philip J. Rayment: The new up-front simple version over-simplified it; copyedits.

'''Ockham's Razor''' is a principle that can loosely be described as ''the simplest explanation is the one that is probably correct''.

Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle]]s in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It is attributed to [[William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan [[Friar]] who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Briefly, it can be stated as follows:

:"From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the fewest [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise"

This is different from the shortest explanation, the shortest logical argument, and the simplest explanation, and the razor is often incorrectly quoted and/or applied. Some people have argued that these criteria qualify as better principles than the razor.

Occam's razor is a ''guiding principle''. That is, it says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions ''is to be preferred'', not ''is correct''. The explanation with the fewest assumptions can turn out to be the wrong explanation.

== Illustration ==

Ockham's razor can be illustrated by the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occurred. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidence to support their claim.

[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].

== Use by atheists ==

Among its practical applications, Occam's Razor has been used by [[atheist]]s to argue against the existence of God.<ref>The Skeptic's Dictionary</ref>
Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

It is, however, important to note that Ockham himself did not accept this reasoning; indeed, he considered the existence of God and the authority of Scripture to be truths which trumped the principle. While Occam's Razor is frequently articulated as "The simplest explanation is to be preferred," what he actually said was "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." <ref>http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm</ref>

== Use by Christians ==
The problem with the [[atheist]] example above is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life. Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption. Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption—If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against [[atheism]], and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://skepdic.com/occam.html Occam's razor] (The Skeptic's Dictionary).
* Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5096/ Occam’s Razor and creation/evolution] 22nd May 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan 2004

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Ontological Principles]]

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2009-03-16T10:06:29Z

Philip J. Rayment: Move search box to top

User talk:Hsmom

2009-03-15T06:14:41Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Thanks... */ Strange; how about another address?

==frisbee==

Please provide this site with an entry for [[frisbee]]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aw, '''I''' wanted ''frisbee''. :-( --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|Rob Pommer]] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll get right on that. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Handy Hints==

Here are a few examples of handy techniques. To make more sense of them, click on "edit" to see the code that produced these examples.

How to <s>strike out</s> text: Put <nowiki> <s> </nowiki> in front of the text, then <nowiki> </s> </nowiki>at the end of the text.
*Example: <nowiki>How to <s>strike out</s> text.</nowiki>
*Result: How to <s>strike out</s> text.

How to add references/citations: Put <nowiki><ref> Title of Reference [URL of reference] </ref></nowiki> The title can be put after the URL also, but it looks nicer in the reference section when it is put before the URL. The title will not be seen with the text, it will only appear in the references section if there is one.
*Example: <nowiki><ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref></nowiki>
*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a reference section at the end of an article:
Put <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> to create the heading. Then on the next line put <nowiki><references/>. </nowiki> Every page that includes citations should have a references section at the bottom.
*Example:
<nowiki>== References ==</nowiki>

<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
*Result: See below, at the bottom of the page.

*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a request for a citation:
*Add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> after the section that needs a citation.

==References==
<references/>

==Fan mail==
I like your approach and your comments. I was neither homeschooled nor have I homeschooled my kids, but I was drawn to this site because I was intrigued by the idea of its being a resource where high-school-age kids could learn by writing articles, and by the idea of a resource aimed at that age group. The site has, um, multiple facets and that doesn't seem to be its most conspicuous facet, but I think it's still there, and I try to write with that audience at least partly in mind. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, you're cool :) (what he said, plus more) [[User:Human|Human]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
==[[Billy Sunday]]==
Tooting my own horn... [[Billy Sunday]] was on the requested articles list, so I wrote it, and I found the topic quite interesting and think the article came out well. Since you'd said you enjoyed [[Mother's Day]], I thought I'd mention this one, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of evolution ==

If you want to help with the references, please write it and paste it in my talk page. I will improve the article with your name in the summary.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Engineer ==

Please see: [[Engineer]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Feminism ==

[[Feminism]] has been unlocked. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Hsmom, since you have suggested grammar fixes to news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. 
Your grammar suggestions have been very helpful. I think they would be more helpful if you made grammar fixes to the articles BEFORE they're posted to the Main page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==May I just say...==

...that I find all of your edits on Talk:Main Page to be absolutely lovely and helpful. They are probably the most informed, level-headed and intelligent suggestions and viewpoints I've seen on here for a while. Many of the tenets you seem to promote in your posts have gotten me blocked here many times, however, but keep up the good work:) [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:13, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Scabies article & Plagiarism ==

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the CDC info. on health issues be considered public domain? There's no copyright information on the website as far as I can see, so it should be fine to copy the information word-for-word as long as it is noted that is how the information was obtained and a link provided to the CDC page. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yep. Here we go: [[Public domain]]: "Two examples of material in the public domain are United States government works (technically the copyright is held collectively by the American public)..." The CDC would fall under that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:33, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This covers other edits you have made (e.g. Tourette syndrome article). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:It was not at all clear in the article that the entire thing had been copied word-for-word from the CDC site. If you are quoting long sections of text, you need to show that with quotation marks or other formatting to make it clear which parts are quoted and which parts are original. While the CDC site was named as a source, it was not indicated that the CDC page had been lifted word-for-word. In addition, a good article will draw upon several sources. Also, just because a site doesn't have a copyright notation does not mean it is in the public domain (although I agree that government works are probably public domain). Bottom line - would you accept this kind of work from a student? I wouldn't. It's dishonest. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I agree, but I think there is a better fix than simply removing the information completely. Seems like overkill. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::I'll see what I can do with them. I need a project anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, the better fix would be to either quote the entire thing with proper attribution (which is still not ideal, IMHO), or re-write each of the articles. If you have time, go for it. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that there may be more medical articles that have been plagiarized. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Take a look at the scabies article now. As long as the medical articles are categorized, it should be easy to check them all. Other than that, I don't know if there's a way to check which pages link to websites like the CDC. But like I said, I needed a project, so I'll do this. Cheers and God bless! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Hmmm. Taking the info from another site and rephrasing it sentence-by-sentence doesn't really improve things. It certainly wouldn't fly in a decent high school class. If the article includes only information from one other site, I think it's better to just go ahead and quote it, making it clear that it is quoted (by using quotation marks, etc.) and properly citing the source. Then it's clear that you are not trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Ideally a minimum of information will be quoted, with the reader being encouraged to read the rest of the original information at the original source. You might enjoy this lovely article about plagarism.<ref>[http://www.pahomeschoolers.com/newsletter/issue78b.htm]</ref> --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a template to flag articles suspected of (or known to be) plagiarism? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, after thinking about it a bit, I think that such a template would indeed be helpful. Of course, ideally the article would be fixed, but people don't always have the time to completely re-write an article when they notice it has been plagiarized, so using the template would be a quick option. I assume that would then generate a list of articles with suspected plagiarism? That would be useful too. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Mex ==

Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Citations==
This was placed in the reason line when you inserted the "fact" template in [[Elephant]]: ''Could we at least get a credible citation for this? 'Cause it's word-for-word from another site. Which would be plagiarism. Which is deceitful and morally wrong.'' I agree with you that plagarism is morally wrong, but I've also noticed you placed a lot of similar lines in articles that you've identified as plagarism without even telling us where they came from at all. If it is plagarism, show us the source so it can be removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:In most of the cases I've found (and I'm beginning to suspect there are a horrifying number of plagiarized articles here), I've re-written the article to include the source, to provide proper attribution, and to minimize the amount of material lifted from any one source. In this particular case however, I Googled the sentence from the article and found an abundance of sites which included the sentence word-for-word. The first several sites I reviewed were not credible sources and thus were not appropriate to cite. I did not have time to review all of the potential sources and determine whether there was a credible one or not. I hope that whoever put this sentence in the article in the first place did indeed get it from a credible site - hopefully they have this article on their watchlist and will provide the source. If not, someone else will have to either find a source or remove the sentence. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it. Go to the talk page, explain what you did and provide the source where it came from. The point I made above is that anyone just cannot say that such-and-such is plagarized without stating the source; all that would be is "my word against your's". If the article is public domain and has no attribution tag at the bottom or a statement such as "text incorporated from...", cite that on the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
:::<edit conflict>Thanks - I'll try to promptly remove any plagiarism I find, and I'll be careful about noting the source in my edit comments. Frankly, I often don't have time to discuss each one in detail on the talk page - I've added the notes below that should cover most situations, and I'll try to make the edit comments clear. One question - what is to be done about images that have no information about their source? I've come across several articles with pictures taken from another site without attribution, but I'm not sure how to address this. Shouldn't all images include the source and some kind of statement as to their copyright status?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are a few things here that you're possibly unaware of for the moment. The first thing is that all intellectual property created by indivuduals working directly for the U.S. government is public-domain; we can use them here as per this page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources]. But they have to be attributed as to where it came from, and the tag below has to be used on the page with the main source placed within it. Another reason this public domain stuff is here (such as the several bird articles your deleted) is to provide a guide for the editor to make improvements and/or additions that are just not in the original.

::::Pictures must be treated the same way; all should have a licence tag on it; all must identify exactly who created it, the year it was created; who or what entity owns it, and whether or not it's public domain. Because we have so many images on the site it would not be possible to go through and check every one. What you could do is to go to the image talk page, find out who uploaded it, and remind that person that the copyright or other is in question and corrections need to be made. See [[Fair use]] for further details, and you can also go to [[user:Karajou/tag template]] for more examples.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] []}}}.
|}

Here's some examples that I did with regard to some of your questions regarding proper attribution:
*Photos that are public domain and/or U.S. Government: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Bighornsheep.JPG][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Passenger_Pigeon_062.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:ExtPassgreatauk2-jja.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0617302.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0821601.jpg]
*Articles from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'', U.S. State Dept, Naval Historical Center: [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Gambia][http://www.conservapedia.com/Iowa-class_battleship][http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29]

Thanks! I really like your templates - they are very nice. I will take a look at all of your examples, though it may take a few days to go through them. I have been here for a while but I am definitely still learning!

* [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29] - Unfortunately, I do have some concerns about this example. This article states at the bottom that "Article incorporates some text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain." Unfortunately, I don't think this is adequate. When you quote from another source, you need to indicate ''which'' text is quoted, either with quotation marks or by indenting the quoted text. (This is especially important in a wiki, because later editors need to know which text is quoted and which is not so they can edit accordingly.) You also need to include a reference tag - the statement at the bottom is a good one, but it should be put in reference format. If the source is on-line, and this one is, then you need to provide a link to the source - there is no link in this article to the source material. And ideally, you need to provide an in-text reference, like "According to the US Navy Historical Center's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, ...". I also noticed that there is information about the picture on the source page that was not included on the Conservapedia picture page: "Grunion (SS-216), off Groton, Connecticut, 20 March 1942.", and "USN photo # N-0000X-001." I think it would be wise to note this on the picture page, so that users know as much as possible about the photo.
Government articles are a great place to look for basic information when you're writing a new article. However, an article that consists solely of several paragraphs of information taken word-for-word from another site is plagiarism, even if the source article is in the public domain. (Something can be plagiarism without being a copyright violation. Everything that is legal is not necessarily ethical.) When writing a new article, the best approach is to look at a variety of sources, and integrate the information (of course including citations) into an original article. It is more work, of course, and takes longer, but it results in a better article and avoids any problems with plagiarism. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Response===
If at all possible, can we have an expectation of you improving the articles after you remove the plagarism? You left this line in one: "According to the US Geological Survey, Double-crested Cormorants are seabirds." A line like that belongs in ''Dick and Jane'', not here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I didn't want to leave absolutely nothing on the page. I understand that it's annoying when what appeared to be a very nice article is removed. However, once discovered, we cannot let plagiarism remain. I honestly don't have the time (or the background) to research a large number of seabirds and write articles about them. I understand that the stub that I've left is not ideal. However, it is accurate and includes a reference, in-text attribution, and quotation marks around the quoted material, which is more than can be said for what was there before. I didn't plagiarize the article in the first place, and I'm afraid I can't take responsibility to undertake a total re--write. Hopefully another editor will have the time and knowledge to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::It's just a minor pet-peeve; I've hated ''Dick and Jane'' since the second grade! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, I think they're kind of cute! But I do know what you mean - you were probably reading way beyond the Dick and Jane level by second grade and they probably made you read it anyway! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==About my Plagiarism Edits==
Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own. It is deceitful and thus morally wrong.
I have been finding many pages which include plagiarism. In some cases, I will not have the time and/or the expertise to re-write the article, nor will I have the time to provide a detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Nonetheless, plagiarism should be removed promptly. Since I won't have the space to provide details about plagiarism in my edit summaries, I am providing further information here.
In general, I will deal with plagiarism I find by:
* Removing the plagiarized material.
* Including the apparent source of the material in my edit summary.
* Including "see my talk page" in the edit summary (if there is room).
I consider the following situations to be plagiarism:
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without attribution of any kind.
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without quotation marks indicating which material is a direct quote. (Often, this includes articles which consist entirely of several paragraphs of information taken from a single source.)
* Articles consisting solely of large amounts of text copied from a single source.
* Material that has been paraphrased from another site without attribution.
Note that:
* When you copy information word-for-word from another source, you need to ''both'' indicate which text is quoted (by using quotation marks or setting it off from the rest of the text in blockquote form) ''and'' provide a citation using reference tags. Ideally, you would also provide in-text attribution (e.g. "according to so-and-so").
* A citation, quotation marks, and ideally in-text attribution need to be provided ''even if the document from which you are quoting is in the public domain''. If you quote from a public-domain source, such as a US government agency's web site, you need to show where the quote came from. The reader needs to know where the information originally came from.
* If you paraphrase information from another source, ''you still need to provide a citation''. Obscuring the source of the information by paraphrasing is not an appropriate way to get around the need for citations.
* Large sections of text should not be copied, even if a citation is provided and quotation marks are used. For example, it is not appropriate to create a Conservapedia article about a particular bird or animal by copying an entire article about the creature from another web site, even if you cite the web site as a source.
An online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use any wiki encyclopedia should not rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. In addition, citing sources helps to minimize errors and helps readers to quickly identify information that may have changed or been updated since the article was written. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

'''Can I cut-and-paste a whole article from another site?''' 
I believe that this would be unethical plagiarism. You can quote a snippet of information from another site - just be sure to include quotation marks (or set it apart from the text) to indicate which words are yours and which came from the other site, provide a reference (including site title, author, URL, and ideally date of retrieval), and ideally provide some in-text attribution. However, just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not make it ethical to copy large amounts of text from a single source. It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (especially a commercial one), and copy the entire thing into an article here. When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site. On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site. The income is usually based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics. When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work. It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it. Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of the writers' jobs. Remember, the government agency is employing writers and in some cases photographers to actually create the content on their site. The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote '''part''' of it, with a reference to the rest. You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article ''This and Such'', argues that "whatever the quote is". <nowiki><ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref></nowiki> As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Already noted===
I refer you to this exchange by a troll and the founder of this website: 
<nowiki>== Copied material? ==</nowiki>

''With the sourcing of [[arthritis]], [[arthralgia]], etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment:''
''# Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.''

''While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)''

'':We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. '''So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites.''' Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)'' Emphasis added END QUOTE This was found [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive17#Copied_material.3F here]. I'm posting this to save you trouble both by trying to find plagiarism of '''.gov''' websites and to avoid getting "in dutch" with the Owner. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]]

== Paragraph quote ==

Is <nowiki>{{cquote}}</nowiki> template preferable to <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki>? --LiamG, 12:35, 11 October 2008

:I am not an expert in wiki markup, nor am I well-versed in Conservapedia's style standards. I'm still learning, and I'm putting notes about what I learn on my user page, in part to remind myself how to do things. I think either of the two approaches are basically fine. Personally, I like the way cquote shows the big blue quotation marks, which make it very clear that the section is a quotation. Using blockquote will set the text apart, but you've got to include some words of attribution before the quote (which of course you should do with the cquote too). I think cquote is less confusing if multiple paragraphs are quoted, because it's clearer where the quote starts and ends. But again, I'm still learning, so there may be an even better approach out there! (I'll add how to blockquote to my list - thanks for the reminder.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::My personal view is that cquote should only be used to draw special attention to a particular quote rather than encapsulate a whole article. It tends to be overused in a lot of articles and to my mind makes the page look ugly. Normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Maybe we should for this to be addressed in the "Manual of Style"? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::BrianCo - I agree that a quote of a sentence or two doesn't need the fancy style of the cquote markup. Like you said, normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. Longer quotations should of course be used sparingly; in my opinion only when they are really significant, in which case the cquote markup would be OK, I think. Certainly it should be the rare case that an entire article would be a quote from a single source! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== surface mining ==

Hi, I wrote a new short article and referenced it to a mining website. If you have time please have a look. [[surface mine]] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== copying from US Gov sites ==

Hsmom, we own material on US government sites. We paid for it as taxpayers, and it is public domain. Word-for-word copying from them is perfectly acceptable. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right? Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own? And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me. It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me. I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it. It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your Trainspotting feedback, and I certainly recognize the demands of laundry and other chores that need to be done!

::As to copying from US government sites, I appreciate your point of view. I would have said the same thing a few years ago. But now I'm uncomfortable with any view of US government work that is other than the fact that we, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it. No attribution is required for that. If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him. Ditto for US govt. works. Indeed, I even filed a law brief once opposing an attempt by someone to prevent copying of a legal requirement. We own laws, we own court opinions, and we own US govt works. (Students aren't graded on this copying, by the way.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::"We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it." Do you mean that the ''taxpayers'' own the material, or that ''everyone'' owns the material because the 'taxpayers' have presented it as a gift? Could I, as an American, copy and paste British government materials without citation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Following this logic, Andy, would you approve of articles in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' using CDC statistics and information from NIH-funded research without proper citation? I doubt it. Just because something does not violate copyright law doesn't make it not plagiarism. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The situation is not as simple as that, Andy. You as American taxpayers paid for it; I as an Australian did not. Because it's in the public domain, I can legally use it, but I can't say that I paid for it. So that means two different rules depending on what nationality we are. Conservapedia itself is based in America, but its contributors are not all American, so given that Conservapedia articles are a joint effort by both Americans and non-Americans, where does that leave the principle of "we paid for it, so we own it"? It's more like "some of us paid for it, so some of us own it, but without going through the history of who added what, one would not know if it was written by someone who 'owned' it or not". (Of course that doesn't affect the ''legal'' situation, but it does affect the ''ethical'' aspect.)
::: If we hired and paid someone to ghost-write an autobiography, for example, then although the hired writer does most of the work, we have the final say and it reflects what ''we'' want. But if we hire and pay someone to write something that is ''their'' words, then it is unethical to claim it as our own. It should be obvious which case U.S. Government publications are most like. When we own the copyright of someone else's written work, that does not include the author's natural rights to have his name on it.
::: And then we have Commandment 2 that says that all copied works must be attributed. And that's much simpler than having different rules for different nationalities.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Also, if this is still an educational project, not expecting students to learn how to properly cite references is missing a huge educational opportunity, not to mention risking teaching behavior that would get them in serious trouble (and rightfully so) in any university. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Corry - also, how to research. I think just "copy paste" doesn't require that the student read what he is writing. My teachers are old fashioned, and make us use real books most of the time, grins, cause we actually have to type out what we are "copying" (making us do lots less of it, I think). The intent of a article should be that you've read several sites and you state in your own words, what you've learned. That's the heart of both good research and good writing, isn't it?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:22, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's true, JeanJacques. However, some people do not have that talent, and having gov sites to copy from is very helpful to improving this site. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 15:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:This is an important skill that goes beyond just research- using different sources to synthesize a viewpoint. This is a skill that some may lack, and that is exactly why it must be practiced.

:Does anybody else feel that we should make a debate page for this? This is important, and I feel like we should move off of Hsmom's talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::Bethany, whilst government sites might well offer useful information which is readily available, simply copying and pasting it is of no use to the person doing the pasting. I remember seeing Aschlafly write "don't read a book, write a book" somewhere and although I am not sure what you are supposed to write about if you have not read about it, the same principal applies to editing a wiki. Simply pasting in somebody else's work is not only lazy, but also unethical, if the original author is not credited, even if it is a government, or public domain, site. To be fair, you would not like it if you found out I had taken something you had written and posted it under my name, would you?
::Besides, the beauty (and half the fun) of editing a wiki is doing the research. I am neither American, nor do I know a great deal about the finer elements of American history, but I was able to put together an article on [[Thomas E. Dewey]] (who, admittedly, I thought created the Dewey decimal system, which is why I looked him up in the first place) and I learnt a great deal from doing that. It is probably not a great article on him and equally true, there are people who might lack the skill to research and write an article, but what better way to learn that skill than by trying it - and beauty number two of a wiki is even if they do struggle with their early attempts, there are editors on here who will be able to improve their entries and offer guidance.
::But to simply copy and paste for the sake of copying and pasting should be frowned on, more so if it is unattributed - regardless of the source. (Unfortunately, it only takes a quick look through some of the entries in the Dictionary category, to see just what a horror story blindly copying and pasting entires can precipitate.) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Konnichiha!'']] 17:06, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Bethany - writing a good article is not a talent, it is a skill that can be learned. Any student who intends to go to college, or to have a white-collar job, or to homeschool their own children, or to help their children prepare for college, should take the time to learn this skill. It comes harder to some than to others, but it is well worth the time it takes to learn. Not only will it make you a better writer, it will make you a more critical reader - you'll be better at asking "where does this information come from" and "who expressed this opinion" and "is this a credible source" - all important skills for any good citizen. Like [[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]] said, a wiki is a great place to learn, because there are lots of other people who can improve your article once you write it, and you can learn by observing the changes they make. Simply copying and pasting test from another site is pointless. It creates another article here, sure, but waters down the quality of the articles and devalues the site's reputation. It's no good to proudly say Conservapedia has such and such number of articles, if you've given the opposition reason to say "yeah, but many of them are just copied from somewhere else". And worse - if you've copied material from other sources without indicating that it is quoted material and where it came from, then you are opening yourself and Conservapedia up for accusations of plagiarism. I can see [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s point about US citizens owning government-generated material, but frankly I feel that the majority of college-educated people would consider it plagiarism regardless, and once you've been labeled a plagiarist, that label is almost impossible to get rid of.
:::Bethany, I encourage you to try to write an article yourself. Pick a topic you know something about. Nothing too broad like "The Revolutionary War" - something more specific, like a particular animal, or a favorite hobby like Irish dancing. Read a few books or magazine articles about it. You don't have to read an entire book - maybe you can find a book that has a few pages about your topic. A librarian can be very helpful with this. Then put the books aside and think about what you think are the most important nuggets of information. Write a phrase about each one on a strip of paper. Now think about how to arrange them - what order makes sense? Move the papers around until you like the order. Now write a sentence or two about each phrase. When you've done this, you've got the body of your article. Write a brief introduction, and perhaps a concluding sentence, and the text is done. Now go back and think about where the facts came from. Put in your references, and you're done! The first one you do may be hard, but you'll get better with practice. You'll get much more satisfaction from writing your own article than from copying someone else's words. And you'll make a much more valued contribution to Conservapedia. It's not the number of articles that's important, it's the quality - and I have confidence that you can write a good article once you've had a bit of practice. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:31, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You==
...for the compliments [[User talk:Aschlafly|here]]. It is nice to see someone who agrees with me and is willing to support their ideas. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Disability article ==

Hi, I created a [[Disability]] article from wanted pages. I am afraid its a bit of a pigs breakfast though. If you have time could you give it a look ? I really appreciate it. I have more to add , mainly specific disabilities and links for them. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
==1000 edits==
Congrats. Can I be nosy and ask how you count? --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Sure! When I click on "my preferences" at the top of the page, it tells me. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Ah, I have a long way to go to reach your status. You can be a roll model (actually, you are for when I disagree with someone, and want to say so, but do not want to be petty and argumentative over it. Thanks for that, by the way).--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Refs==

Hi, mom! Nice work [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kenya&curid=18546&diff=566338&oldid=542824&rcid=617502 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
: Thanks! Gotta get some sewing done now though... --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Underline ==

I looked up the wikicode for underline. It's <nowiki>your text here</nowiki>. Hope that helps. Keep up the excellent work.
:Thanks JohnD! I love learning new wiki code! Will put it to work right away!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== United States Department of Agriculture Terms ==

Via ''random page'', I stumbled on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ridge_roughness&diff=prev&oldid=334972 Ridge roughness], and changed it to this version: [[Ridge roughness]]. Then, I looked at some of the other articles on ''Argiculture Terms'': All of them seem to be outrageously mindless copy & paste jobs from the reference, i.e., [http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/glossary.html USDA glossary].
What to do? Frankly, any student looking for these terms were better of visiting the site of the USDA. But as the articles exist on this site, should I try to model them into the one I've done first?
You seem to be a kind of expert on these things, so I'd love to get some input from you.
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]], I'm afraid I don't know. There are quite a few examples of this type of thing, and I agree with you that the reader is better off with the original site, at least as things stand now. You did an excellent job of improving [[Ridge roughness]], but what a lot of work it would be to do all of them! And I'm always wary of an article written by someone who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand. (Not, of course, implying that this is the case with you, but it has often been the case with me in these situations.) [[Ridge roughness]] at least won't hurt anyone - it's the unsourced cut-and-paste medical articles that scare me. I've taken the liberty of adding quotations marks and a <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template to [[Ridge roughness]]. At least with a stub template it goes on the list of articles that need to be nurtured. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:41, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Thank you for your answer! No, I'd never heard the term [[Ridge roughness]] before, but I don't think that I can change these articles to the worse ;-) I share your concerns about the medical articles, it would nice to have a couple of M.D.s to look after them. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 22:03, 18 December 2008 (EST)

== Cleaning up the vaccine article ==
Thanks for cleaning up my section. I have to leave things alone for a day to be able to see my grammatical and stylistic errors. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:36, 28 January 2009 (EST)

:You're welcome! I enjoy copy editing. I know what you mean about leaving things alone. One high school teacher I had suggested we plan our writing projects to include a day of leaving the draft in a drawer for 24 hours so we could look at it with fresh eyes later. (Of course, that was back in the dark ages when the draft was written in pencil on lined paper!) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Homosexual misinterpretation==

Thanks for your edit, even if it was "its" over "it's". Find and fix more of such things if you want. But please do not change content before discussing it. But can anyone tell me why I am often locked out for 24hrs after I make edits to this page, in which I have been the only contributor? I emailed cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com but rcvd no response. Thanks --21:12, 7 February 2009 Daniel1212

: Thanks, Daniel1212, I enjoy editing for grammar, spelling, and readability. You should be aware, thought, that here at CP, most changes are made without discussion first; Conservapedia frowns on too much talk, so you should expect changes to the content will be made. If you object to the change, then you can begin a discussion on the talk page. As to being locked out, I'm afraid I have no idea - I don't deal with that side of things here. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservapedian==
Way to go Hsmom! Your highly credible additions deserve much praise. A+ --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 14:05, 8 February 2009 (EST)
: Thanks [[User:Jpatt|jpatt]], that means a lot to me! And I find your work here fascinating! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:01, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== ...And Thank You in Return ==

I appreciate the kind words. I know I don't represent the preferred point of view on CP, but I believe in the importance of understanding the various sides of issues even when you're firmly behind just one of them. If both the conservative and non-conservative sides of an issue have their supporting arguments presented in a fair, reasoned manner and the conservative position is still preferred, then people can have the satisfaction of knowing that it was based on the merits of the argument, and not just because they've only been given one side of the issue to consider.

Hopefully my contributions here will encourage more people to engage those with different opinions instead of dismissing them. Debating issues respectfully with others is not the "someone must win and someone must lose" battle some people regard it as - it can also just be a way for active, curious minds to get some exercise, and maybe learn something new from others in the process.

I've admired how you put a lot of thought and research into your positions, and respect your work here greatly. You're definitely the kind of person who should be considered for promotion to sysop the next time that comes up. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

If you check your email in-box for your account here, I have responded to your courteous and thoughtful message. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: TK, I never got your email. Can you re-send it? I miss DinsdaleP's thoughtful input. Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::Ahhh, I see. You need to check your Spam, as that is where many emails sent through the wiki to me end up. I have just re-sent it...please let me know if you get it, or alternatively, use the contact info on my user page, and email me, and I will send back direct to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::TK, I didn't get your second email either - looked in my spam folder and so on, but no sign of it. As an experiment, I sent an email to myself (not through CP), and it went through just fine. Then I sent an email to myself through CP, and it didn't go through, nor did the copy that CP was supposed to send to me of the email I sent (if you see what I mean). So it looks like there's something up with CP's processing of my emails. I'll try to email you through CP, but if that doesn't work it looks like we're out of luck. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:04, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

::::There is no anonymity emailing through CP. When you send through it, your email address given in preferences is shown, and the user responding, their email shows to the person getting it. Just send to me using the email given at the top of my user page, if you will. I have received this day three emails from editors, and it was working fine for them, and the only problem I have ever had with it is Outlook marking some as Spam / Junk Mail, as I noted. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:16, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Hsmom, have you checked your e-mail address in your preferences? If you are not getting even the copy you send from Conservapedia, it suggests to me that your e-mail address is recorded incorrectly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:15, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

*Brilliant supposition, PJR. Thanks! Hopefully Hsmom will check it out, and let us know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:23, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

:PJR, thanks for the suggestion. That was actually my first thought, so when I sent an email outside of CP I copied the address directly from my CP preferences page, and it worked outside of CP, but like I said it didn't work through CP. Never mind, I really don't need to communicate privately with anyone, so it's not worth trying to figure it out now; maybe I'll work on it when I'm less busy. I've removed the email address from my preferences for now so no one thinks I'm ignoring their emails! I miss DinsdaleP; even though his views were often liberal, he was quite thoughtful and polite and good with research, but it looks like, whatever the reason, he's gone for good. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Strange. I've never had any problems with it myself. I've sent e-mails via this method to a number of other people (including copies to me), and many have sent me e-mails this way. Then again, I've known of other administrators who've claimed to have problems with it. Perhaps it's something about the e-mail address itself that Conservapedia doesn't like. The only thing I can suggest is trying a different e-mail address if you have a different one, and see if that works.
:: It does explain, however, why you "ignored" my e-mail to you. But then my e-mail didn't require a response, so I didn't actually assume that you'd ignored it!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T14:22:19Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Notes */ Reflist

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
 
 
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref>

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]].
What this view overlooks is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T14:21:10Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Inerrant in English translation */ Change "Some" to "A few". I think this group is pretty small, but I can't find a reference.

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T14:03:25Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Inerrant in English translation */ Remove reference which does /not/ claim this; add response.

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
 
 
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref>

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]].
What this view overlooks is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:46:54Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Inerrant in original manuscripts */ Reference

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]].
What this view overlooks is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:40:44Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy */ Decapitalise

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]].
What this view overlooks is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:39:07Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy */ Some rewording and removal of inapplicable link.

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]].
What this view overlooks is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:35:41Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Versions of inerrancy */ More rearrangement, with minor rewording to suit.

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]].

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:31:49Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Versions of inerrancy */ Move long-orphaned sentence and reword.

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangalical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called [[Biblical literalism]]. The second is that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. The former view is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Evangelical Christians]], while the latter is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:29:10Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Versions of inerrancy */ Start changing this section

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

Evangalical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.
These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called [[Biblical literalism]]. The second is that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. The former view is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Evangelical Christians]], while the latter is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold this position<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>.

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:17:42Z

Philip J. Rayment: Expand shorter-version introduction

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error.

There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language [[King James Bible|Authorised (King James) version]].
[[Evangelical]]s hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called [[Biblical literalism]]. The second is that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. The former view is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Evangelical Christians]], while the latter is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold this position<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>.

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Biblical inerrancy

2009-03-14T13:11:20Z

Philip J. Rayment: Start of restructure of introduction.

{{Bible}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the [[Bible]] (i.e. original manuscripts as opposed to translations or later versions<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>) is without flaw or error.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

Some Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7, and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.

The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called [[Biblical literalism]]. The second is that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. The former view is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Evangelical Christians]], while the latter is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold this position<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>.

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==
In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]?

Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>

===Seventies debate===
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:bible]]

Talk:Biblical accuracy

2009-03-14T11:00:09Z

Philip J. Rayment: Revert troll

Re:Luke. He was a good historian because he wrote about his contemporary time? Lolwut? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:* Writing about the time that one knows is not a guarantee of being accurate.
:* Many have disputed that the Bible was accurate, so Luke's accuracy is a valid point to make.
:* Most if not all of the Bible was written by contemporaries. So you'd agree that the entire Bible is accurate? (I do).

: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Is this article more about Biblical ''inerrancy'', as opposed to ''accuracy''? I think so, but maybe there's something here that's too subtle for me. Wouldn't be the first time! -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 22:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Inerrancy is the theological concept that they Bible ''must be'' without error, being God's revelation.
: This article is about the evidence that the Bible ''is'' a very accurate historical record.
: Does that clarify it for you?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:09, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, thanks Philip.--[[User:Martib|Martib]] 11:25, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Bible

2009-03-14T09:48:26Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Other versions */ Clarifications (one per talk); improve footnote

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 66 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>
{{Bible}}

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}

The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

==== Inspiration ====
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
Paul has been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

==History of the Bible==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===Early New Testament history===
[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.

===Gutenberg's Bible===
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world. The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many more people at a lower cost than if they were printed by hand.

===Wyclif's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. [http://www.e-sword.net] (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness." [http://www.mindspring.com/~je_cobb/presidentindex.html]

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Versions==
*[[King James Version]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Latin Vulgate]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==

*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966).
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967).
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965).
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Talk:Bible

2009-03-14T09:38:32Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* error in article */ On the numbers, and unlocked.

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the [[Christian Bible]]. We Jews, of course also use the term ''the Bible'' to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).

:It's a matter of terminology. Christians say ''the Bible'' meaning OT + NT. Jews say ''the Bible'' and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see [[Sunday School]]) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

== Best-selling book? ==

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:No. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove categories ''religion'' and ''Book of Worship'', as they are supercategories of ''bible''. Also, if you could change the format to <nowiki>[[Category:Bible|*]]</nowiki> so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggestions ==
As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: With ''those'' annotations, yes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html]:
:::::::* "''(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.''": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
:::::::* "''(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day''": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
:::::::* "''And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?''": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
:::::::* "''God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.''": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
:::::::* "''(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ''": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already ''light'', and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: 1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
::::::::: 2. Humans ''can''. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
::::::::: 3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
::::::::: 4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
::::::::: 5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
:2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
:3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
:4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
:5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
:Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:: 1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I ''think'' I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use ''science'' outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
:: 2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, ''in principle'', be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text ''doesn't'' disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
:: 3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a ''particular direction'' (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
:: 4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1:2}}. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650 here] for a detailed study of the issue.
:: 5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
:: Did you read [[Flat Earth]]? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Correction and authorship ==

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --[[User:Dale77|Dale77]] 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)

{{QuoteBox|2.1.4 Inspiration Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God. The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."}}
{{unsigned|Dale77}}
:Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Violence ==
I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? {{unsigned|Gobber}}

:And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Authorship of Job ==

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
==Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask==
I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html here] for the Old Testament and [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html here] for the New Testament. That second one also recommends [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.
: ?
:* The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
:* Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal ''Book of Enoch'' (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).

::There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like ''Book of Jasher'' in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; ''Book of Wars of the Lord'' in Nm 21:14. The ''Book of Jubilees'' is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. ''Sirach/Ecclesiasticus'' is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--[[User:Kencaesi|Kencaesi]] 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

::: I did say "''much'' if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that ''referring'' to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, ''much'' of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== error in article ==

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Bible

2009-03-14T09:36:17Z

Philip J. Rayment: Unprotected "Bible": Been locked long enough.

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 66 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>
{{Bible}}

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}

The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

==== Inspiration ====
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
Paul has been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the last days prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

==History of the Bible==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical. The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===Early New Testament history===
[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.

===Gutenberg's Bible===
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world. The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many more people at a lower cost than if they were printed by hand.

===Wyclif's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. [http://www.e-sword.net] (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness." [http://www.mindspring.com/~je_cobb/presidentindex.html]

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into nearly every language on Earth, including a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Versions==
*[[King James Version]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Latin Vulgate]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==

*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966).
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967).
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965).
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

User talk:Hsmom

2009-03-14T09:15:22Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Thanks... */ Check your preferences.

Prayer

2009-03-14T09:07:23Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Private and Public Prayer */ grammar; consistency of italics

[[Image:Prayer.jpg|right|300px|Praying Hands]]
In [[Christianity]] and many other religions, '''prayer''' is the process of directly connecting to [[God]], usually for the purpose of deliberate communication.

Through prayer our thoughts and hopes are heard and understood. Oftentimes, prayer will result in feeling God's presence or feeling like one is touched by God. This feeling of a connection is cited by many theists as proof of God's existence. It is through prayer that man can understand God's will in his life and ask God for the courage and strength to carry his message to the world. Prayer is common throughout the [[Bible]] in both the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament|New]].

== How not to Pray ==

In the [[Sermon on the Mount]] [[Jesus]] warned against hypocrisy in prayer:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."<ref>Matt 6:5</ref></blockquote>

At the time the religious authorities believed it was necessary to pray at specific times of the day, and would often make sure they were in large crowds of people when those times arose so that they could be seen and heard by all. Jesus did not approve of this.

Jesus also gave instructions on how not to pray:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."<ref>Matt 6:7-8</ref></blockquote>

Pagan prayers at the time believed that there was power in words and continous repetition and if you said a word often enough, then you could eventually own that object or claim that power for yourself. Jesus condemned this.

== A guideline of how one should Pray ==

In Christianity, Jesus gives a guideline of how one should pray to God with The Lord's Prayer:<blockquote>"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name, thy kingdom come, they will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, [[Amen]]."<ref>Matt 6:9-13 </ref><ref>[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/lordsprayer.asp Instructions for praying] </ref></blockquote>

==Private and Public Prayer==

There are many instances in the Bible of praying in private and also of praying within a group, and sometimes even of praying in public.

<blockquote>"But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed."<ref>{{Bible ref|Luke|5|16}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Image:Jesus praying.jpg|thumb|Jesus praying at Gethsemane]]

Jesus also instructed:<blockquote>"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."<ref>Matt 6:6</ref></blockquote>

Even though he was with his [[Twelve Disciples|disciples]], Jesus also went off alone to pray on the [[Mount of Olives]] before he was about to be seized and [[crucified]].<ref>Luke 22:39-41</ref>

There are also many examples in the Bible of group prayer or praying in front of others:
* [[Solomon]] prayed publicly in dedicating the [[temple]] ({{Bible ref|1_Kings|8|22-61}}).
* [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] prayed alone in his room, but by an open window where he could be seen ({{Bible ref|Daniel|6|10-11}}).
* Jesus sometimes prayed with his disciples ({{Bible ref|Luke|9|18}}).
* The Church prayed for Peter's miraculous release from prison ({{Bible ref|Acts|12|5}}).
* Jesus prayed in public, such as in {{Bible ref|Matthew|19|13-15}} when Jesus prayed for the children brought to him.

Other religions, and even different traditions within Christianity have developed their own practices related to prayer.<ref>"The Modes of Prayer," from the Nazerine Way of Essenic Study [http://www.thenazareneway.com/modes_of_prayer.htm]</ref>

Modern societies often oppose and discourage public prayer. For example, in the United States [[classroom prayer]] is forbidden in government [[school]]s.

==Prayer in other religions==

In Hinduism, Prayer is an integral part of the daily living. Chanting of [[mantras]] is the most important form of prayer in Hinduism. Some devotees meditate chanting different names of the Gods.

== See also ==
*[[Classroom prayer]]
*[[Hail Mary]]
*[[Rosary]]
*[[Sinner's prayer]]
*[[The Lord's Prayer]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.catholic.org/prayers/ Prayers] Catholic Online.
* Mates, Nathan, [http://www.visi.com/~nathan/xtian/publicprayer.html Praying in Public] 9th April 2000.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/rosary.htm#mary Prayers]
*[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html The Biology of Belief]

== References==
<references/>

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category: Christianity]]

Noah

2009-03-14T08:57:20Z

Philip J. Rayment: "religious texts" is begging the question.

[[Image:Noah.jpg|thumb|right|Noah]]
'''Noah''', or '''Noach''' ([[Hebrew]] '''נוֹחַ'''), the son of [[Lamech]], was, as related in the Bible, commanded by [[God]] to build an ark in order to save his family and representatives of all the world's land animals while God destroyed the wicked world with a flood<ref>Gen. 6:6</ref>. The story of Noah is found in the book of [[Genesis]] in chapters 6 to 9, and he is described as one of the "Heroes of Faith" in [[Book of Hebrews|Hebrews]] chapter 11.<ref>He is also mentioned in the [[chronogenealogy]] of Genesis 5 and mentioned by Isaiah and Peter.</ref>

==Life==
[[Image:Noah's - Ark.jpg|thumb|Noah's Ark, by Hanna Varghese, [[Malaysia]].]]
God saw that man had become wicked in every inclination, and thought and the earth was filled with violence, but Noah alone was righteous. God commanded Noah to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] that would have seven (or seven pairs) of every "clean" ([[kosher]]) animal and two of every unclean animal. Noah did as he was told and spent many years building the ark. When it was completed, God flooded the earth with rain from above and waters from within the earth. Noah was 600 years old when the flood started. After the flood waters had subsided, (which lasted almost a year), Noah came out of the Ark. Noah made sacrifices to God, and God formed a new covenant with Noah where he promised never again to flood the earth. Noah planted a vineyard, and drank of the wine until he fell asleep naked in his tent. [[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]], the father of [[Canaan]], saw him and told his two brothers, but left his father as he was. The two brothers, upon hearing Ham's pronouncement, took a garment and walked backwards into their father's tent, and covered his nakedness without looking at him. When Noah awoke, he cursed Canaan, his grandson, for he "knew what his younger son had done unto him."<REF>{{bible ref|Genesis|9|24,25|version=KJV}}</REF>. Noah lived 350 more years before dying at the age of 950.<REF>{{Bible ref|Genesis|9|28,29}}</REF>

All people alive today must be descendants of Noah and his family:
{{Bible quote|book=Genesis|chap=7|verses=13,23|version=KJV|In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark. ... And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.}}

==Flood Accounts==
{{main|Great Flood}}

Many cultures have a tradition of a global flood and the biblical account has many commonalities with these accounts.
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth creationists]] argue that this supports the claim that the flood was a real event.<ref>Morris, John, [http://www.icr.org/article/570/ Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?] (ICR)</ref>

== Family of Noah ==
''In Genesis, Chs 5 and 10, we are told:''

The sons of '''Noah''' were [[Shem]], [[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]] and [[Japheth]]

The children of '''Shem''' were [[Elam]], [[Asshur]], [[Arphaxad]], [[Lud]] and [[Aram]]

The sons of '''Ham''' were [[Cush]], [[Mizraim]], [[Phut]] and [[Canaan]]

The sons of '''Japheth''' were [[Gomer (son of Japheth)|Gomer]], [[Magog]], [[Madai]], [[Javan]], [[Tubal]], [[Meshek]] and [[Tiras]]

==See also==
*[[Noah's Ark]]
*[[Great Flood]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
{{nb patriarch}}
[[Category:Book of Genesis Persons]]

Talk:Pangea

2009-03-14T08:40:50Z

Philip J. Rayment: Talk:Pangea moved to Talk:Pangaea: Per talk

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Pangaea]]

Talk:Pangaea

2009-03-14T08:40:50Z

Philip J. Rayment: Talk:Pangea moved to Talk:Pangaea: Per talk

==Any Suggestions==

Do I need to add anymore than that? How do you propose the flood broke up the super-continent to form the world as we know it in a year? From the miniature tectonic activities we have in our current environment causing the massive natural disasters they do, would this not have destroyed the world with mega-earthquakes and unending volcanic eruptions, changing the very chemical make-up of the atmosphere?{{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}
: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here]. I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects. The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?). And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

Good point, but are you an expert in the field, or just (like Philip and myself) a well-educated layman? We need to quote authoritative sources in our articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, I'm no expert. It was just what came to my head as I read the article. If I had references etc. to cite then I might have added a sub-heading on the article about it. Maybe I'll be able to back up my words with qualifications one day, but untill then I'll just share my theories with people. Also, with the 'intention to destroy the world' part Philip, I was more refering to tectonic activity making the world completely uninhabitable for any human beings in the time suceeding the flood, rather than being part of the judgement of mankind which is embodied by the flood. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:37, 19th November 2008(EST)
::: "''If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article...''": It is not accurate to say that the article implies that. It mentions two different flood-related possibilities. First, that the break-up occurred during the time of Peleg, which would indeed mean that Pangea existed when the ark landed. In this case, your description of the consequences is likely close to correct. However, it then also says that ''most'' creationists believe that it occurred ''during'' the flood, which means that Pangea had ceased to exist at the time the ark came to rest, and therefore the consequences that you describe would not have occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::True, I had factored in something else which I should have mentioned, which is the idea of exotic animal migration - namely the kangaroo's - to places like Australia. I absolutely deny the theory which says they could have migrated there with lower sea levels as a scientific theory - it is a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's. In the article's themselves, they say that of places such as Krakatoa, that [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "it was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes, and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."] However, the instruments whereby small animals migrate are well-known, and the limitation on specific animals which can journey by such methods is also well known. As I said this is an 'if and maybe' scenario, and provides no evidence to suggest this possible method of migration should or would transpose onto kangaroo's. The article also speaks about Kangaroo's spreading out over time, but there is no fossil evidence of any such slow-paced migration . He also states that "The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct." However, again, there is no fossil evidence of kangaroos living anywhere but Australia. The author cites rabbits who have migrated across Australia as an example of long distance migrations, however they moved with human populations, and also didn't have to cross any major bodies of water, which the kangaroo's would have had to do at some point. The author in this article also states that specialized, localized populations may have come to be out of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation."], which surely removes itself from a true creationist perspective, as it basically states the creatures [http://www.answers.com/evolution evolved] to suit their surroundings. So if we take the existence of a post-flood Pangaea as the only possible explanation of kangaroo - and other exotic creaturs - migration, then the argument can stand. As I said, mine is only a theory, but I also don't accept the science behind the migratory explanation, so I cannot accept that as a defeating criticism.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:02 20th November 2008(EST)

::::: I understand what you are saying about animal migration, but just as you describe it as a "a list of possibly-nearly-maybe's", your response is simply a bit of hand-waving to say that we know how smaller creatures did it and bigger creatures can't. But there's been plenty examples in science of unexpected discoveries. It's a big leap from "we can't imagine how it's possible" to "it couldn't have happened that way".
::::: When creationists point to gaps in the fossil record, we are told how sparse it is. Yet now I'm supposed to believe that it's complete enough to be able to dismiss an argument from a ''lack'' of evidence? If some things are totally absent from the fossil record for over a supposed 60 million years, then of what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?
::::: No, I'm pretty certain that rabbits spread across Australia by their own means, just as the cane toad is currently spreading across Australia, despite human attempts to stop it.
::::: Evolution from the first cell to the variety of creatures that we have today requires a massive ''increase'' in genetic information. That increase is not actually observed. What ''is'' observed, however, is ''decreases'' in information, but ''decreases'' are not microbes-to-man evolution. You can redefine evolution all you like, including into forms that creationists agree with (e.g. a current popular one is ''variations in gene frequency''), but the point is that it is the evolutionary "family tree", not changes in gene frequency, that creationists disagree with.
::::: I'm not sure that I get your final point. You seem to be saying that the idea of Pangea splitting up during the flood doesn't work because it doesn't explain animal migration, so you prefer the idea of Pangea splitting up ''after'' the flood, despite ''that'' idea not working because nothing would survive the split?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: You got my final point exactly friend; that I came to a paradox in my thinking, one that I couldn't solve. That's why I re-titled this page as "Any Suggestions", and they are welcome. It's positive debate as I see it. I don't see that scientific evolution has described to any complete degree the world coming to be at it is, but at present, I am looking for an explanation which I feel is right, and that - in my opinion - can only be found through observation, experience and reason.
:::::: Where you talk about my ''hand-waving'' though, I feel this is maybe a little unfair. When we speak of evolution, it is sometimes suggested that ''what is observed'' is insufficient to explain microbe to man evolution, and I can understand that point. What I am saying is that, while we have ''observed'' ways and means in which small creatures can traverse large distances, we have also observed that these means are not usable as the means of transporting larger creatures. Therefore, I see no reason to make the assumption that larger creatures could have traversed such distances, just as you see no reason to accept microbe to man evolution. I'm not trying to force an evolutionary explanation on you, but to discuss the problems I see.
:::::: "''what significance is the absence of fossils of kangaroos from the fossil record for a few thousand years?''" I think the significance for me is that there aren't as many ''recent'' gaps in fossil evidence. If a creature was supposed to have migrated from somewhere within a few thousand years of today, then it is highly probable that there would be fossil evidence to support this. I can understand the point you make again, and I have to agree to some degree that fossil evidence can in some cases be incomplete, inadequate and somewhat [http://www.trilobites.info/anohome.html misleading, as shown by the Anomalocas], although this is usually with ''older'' fossil records.
::::::The rabbits spreading of their own accord is a moot point, given that they still did not need to traverse any great body of water. I wasn't trying to redefine evolution either. I provided a dictionary definition because I felt that what he had described - in essence the specialization of creatures to their environment - was akin to what I take to be evolution. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This may seem odd (not sure of right word so odd will do) but some arguments about the flood suggests the involvement(interferance/intervention) of God to ensure the survival of the ark and subsequent survival of Noah etc. If you accept that premise then the diapora(?) of the animals or surviving the breakup of Pangea becomes moot. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

: (To Entheogenicorder) Perhaps the "hand-waving" comment was a bit unnecessary, but my point was that you were simply waving away an argument with little to go on. I understand what you are saying about observations, but I guess my point was that observations in this case are very inconclusive.
: Another point that I didn't mention is that it may be that the kangaroos that arrived here did so as young roos, not fully-grown adults. Would that fit in with the size range that you are talking about that we have observed covering water stretches? Another possibility that may be unlikely but I don't think can be ruled out is that they were brought across by humans.
: As for the rabbits, I agree that they didn't have to cross large bodies of water. But you appeared to be making two distinct points there, that they move (a) with humans, and (b) not across water. I grant you the second, but I was replying to the first.
: The reference I made to fossils missing for 60 million years was actually to things that are still alive, but are missing for the ''last'' 60 million years; hence they are missing from the ''recent'' fossil record as well as the ancient one.
: My reference to "you" redefining evolution was plural: "you" meaning "evolutionists", not ''you'' specifically.
: (To Markr) Biblical evidence is that God kept the use of miracles to a minimum. Genesis specifically records that God brought the animals to Noah, but not that he assisted their distribution after.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:: I was not 'waving away' anything. I was commenting on an encyclopedic entry which, as such, purports to be truth, with theoretical arguments against said encyclopedic entry. My lack of concrete evidence for my argument is a moot point given the lack of scientific evidence for the content of the article itself, given that mine is a criticism of something which poses itself as a truth.
:: I don't think in all truth that young roos - or any roos - could successfully have made the journey, across land and sea, without some sort of aid, so the suggestion of human interference seems the most plausible, without being much to go on.
:: What I was referring to with the rabbits - if I must expand, despite it being a moot point - was more that their populations would thrive with human influence - the harsh outback would not be friendly to a rabbit, and there would be little food untill humans settled down and grew crops and suchlike. Given this, it is quite likely that without human influence they would not thrive as they have done. It is interesting to note the example of the Cane toad, as they have been an example of evolution in action since their introduction to a new [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html environment].
:: If we take it as true that there have been periods of history lasting 60 million years, then we also accept the changing nature of the earth, and the possibility of fossils being lost, even in the ''last'' 60 million years. Within the last ten thousand years or so is another matter, and as any archaeologist will probably testify, there are constant discoveries being made and therefore amendments to what we know or can learn from fossils.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't see any reason that the Kangaroos would have trouble crossing the land. As for them crossing the water, you haven't explained why some small creatures that you say can cross water could do so but not young kangaroos.
::: As far as the rabbits in the outback are concerned, you ''may'' be right, but note that Australia built some very long fences ''in the outback'' to limit the spread of the rabbits. Yes, there probably was human activity there, but it would have been minimal. Cane toads have shown no evidence of evolution of the sort that creationists object to. What the news report is referring to is ''adaptation'' within the genetic variability of the cane toads.
::: I don't follow your point about missing fossils; it seems to be just special pleading to dismiss my objections to your earlier claim.
::: Lenski's research, even if it is genuinely new genetic information produced by chance, is actually an argument ''against'' goo-to-you evolution, as it shows extremely ''little'' evolution occurs over a large number of generations.
::: Scientific evidence may not have been refuted, but evolution is mostly philosophy and story telling, with only a small amount of scientific evidence, most of which is also compatible with creation.
::: You may not deny the existence of a god, or of parts of the Bible, but if you believe evolution, you must of necessity reject those foundational parts of the Bible that are inconsistent with it, such as the creation of the world in six days, the creation being "very good" (without fault), and death occurring only after the appearance of mankind.
::: If the argument you mention is the most convincing argument you've heard for the existence of God, then it would appear that you've heard very little on the subject. The argument is false anyway, in proposing a history for Adam. Being created as a fully-grown man only gives the appearance of him having been a child if you reject that God could create him as an adult (and that therefore the only way an adult could come about is by being a child first). As a belly button is a scar (not a design feature) of an event that never occurred, Adam would not have had one, so this "evidence" is invented. You are confusing an appearance of adulthood with an appearance of ''aging'', and the processes that go along with that. That is, Adam would have appeared as an adult, true, but without any evidence of having grown older or of a past life, such as scars, wrinkles, callouses, or the like, that would be evidence of actual events happening. A machine such as a television, fresh off the factory floor, is ''complete'', but without scratches, worn parts, etc. which come with ''aging''. Adam would have been like that. The analogy with cosmology and genetics follows: Any evidence of actual events happening indicates that those things happened; they were not fake history created by God. But similarly, evidence that is not actually of events happening, but which ''assume'' that a history was required, is not ''evidence'', but ''presumption''. For the same reason, creationists generally reject the idea that God created starlight in transit, because that starlight carries information about events happening, such as stars going nova, that would never have happened if the starlight was created in transit. But similarly, they reject claims about ages based on presumptions that things started off in particular states when it is just as valid to claim that God created them that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: I see a problem in that they would have passed through many different environments in getting to Australia, so they would surely need to adapt to those environments. With regards to young roos being able to cross the water easily, we know that they spend much of their young lives depending on their mothers for protection and sustinance, so that means the journey would have had to fit nicely into the alotted time period between dependence and full-grown maturity, which is doubtful. If young roos are able to travel in the same way as other small mammals, it begs the question why they would not migrate further beyond Australia, to colonize other islands, as other small animals have done. Did they set off from the Middle East with the objective of ending up in Australia? Was it by luck that they ended up there?
: I don't necessarily believe in the evolution of Mankind - at least not the evolution of our conscious, reasoning minds - but even the slow evolution demonstrated in the lab is evidence of ''some'' evolution, no matter how little, in some creatures. Even waiting 41,000 generations - very much within the lifetime of one scientist - to see genetic mutations, is a small number of generations in terms of a 6 billion year earth-history.
: Regarding fossils, I know there isn't a perfect picture of the past 60 million year history, my point was that if you accept that the earth has had a 60 million year history, then you also have to accept dramatic geological changes as part of the earths history, and these will lead to the destruction of historical evidence. The fact that there is evidence of such an ancient history is in itself scientific evidence that the Biblical accounts of creation are incorrect or inadequate.
: Evolution is philosophy and story telling in as much as the scientific observation of ones environment can be. The genetic age has demonstrated that genes are passed from both parents down to their child, and that mutations in parental genes - such as genetic disorders - therefore appear in their children. In this, and as with the example of the cane toad and many [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878?maxtoshow=3D&HITS= more] we can see evolution to some extent at work.
: I see your argument against the appearance of a history but I don't necessarily agree. When you speak of ageing features - scars, wrinkles etcetera, this would not be the appearance of history I was referring to. It was the appearance of growth, rather than ageing - that God would have created Adam with fingernails, hair and eyesight, all traits which a human being otherwise has to grow or learn, not ones they are born with. The appearance of history exists insomuch as Adam is a functioning human being. Regarding the example you give with the television, I would say that the construction of the component parts for the television may be analogous with the construction of genetic material for human beings. Equally I would not like to make an analogy between Gods creation and mankinds creation, as that would imply the assumption of God having ''constructed'' us in a similar way to the way we construct inanimate objects. I believe if God did create us, it would be far more complex than this and could not be described wholly in any human given description. The argument I was putting forward is one which has existed for many years, and I don't think you've fully addressed to absolute nature of it, which is looked at in greater depth in the reference given.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:: How many different environments between the middle east and Australia would there have been in the first few hundred years after a global flood wiped everything out? I doubt that there would be much in the way of deserts by then, for example.
:: I don't think the journey is doubtful at all on the basis that the journey would have to fit into the time between dependence and maturity. If you've got enough of the animals around, chances are ''some'' will be at just the right stage to make the water-crossing part of the journey.
:: Once you've got to Australia, there's not much place left to go that is not across larger stretches of water. No, they would not have targetted Australia. Rather, what's likely is that the sea levels rose (at the end of the [[ice age]]) and cut off or increased the gap from the mainland after the marsupials reached Australia and before large carnivorous animals reached Australia. When spreading out from the middle east after the flood, the carnivorous animals are not going to lead the way; they are going to follow the vegetarians. The vegetarians would lead. Everywhere but Australia the carnivores eventually caught up and wiped them out, but the ones that reached Australia became isolated so survived.
:: 41,000 generations might seem a small number in terms of a six billion year earth history, but (a) Earth's history is only supposed to be 4.5 billion years; (b) life on Earth is only supposed to be around 3.5 billion years old, (c) humans are supposed to have evolved around, say one million years ago, from a common ancestor with the apes around, say, six million years ago. This means that humans evolved from that common ancestor in around 200,000 generations. With one mutation per 41,000 generations, that allows for about ''five'' mutations! But it's worse than that. With sexual reproduction, there's only a 50% chance of any mutation being passed on, so you'd only get to keep two or three of those five! ''That'' is why Lenski's research is so bad for the evolutionary hypothesis (one reason anyway).
:: Okay, I ''think'' that I understand your argument about the fossil record. Is this it? If the Earth has a 60-million year history, it would have lots of gaps in the fossil record. But if it has a 6,000 year-history, the fossil record would be pretty complete. Is that it? If so, the problem is that if the Earth has a 6,000-year history, the vast majority of the fossil record comes from the one year of the flood around 4,500 years ago, and comparatively very little since. So under ''either'' scenario, the "recent" fossil record is very incomplete. As for the "fact" of evidence of an ancient history, I reject that there is any such "fact". Dates are based on the belief and on assumptions, not directly on measurements (see [[radiometric dating]]).
:: Evolution is not philosophy and story telling like scientific ''observation'' is, because molecules-to-man evolution is ''not'' observed! If I propose that water boils at 120 degrees Celsius, you can test that claim for yourself, and ''observe'' the results. If you propose that 100 million years ago dinosaurs turned into birds, what test can I do to see if your claim is correct? Testing the boiling point of water is science. Claiming that dinosaurs turned into birds is story-telling. Genetic changes that don't add new genetic information—such as wings on cane toads (or even something less dramatic but still something ''new'')—is not molecules-to-man evolution, but merely variation within the created kind.
:: Your reference to fingernails, hair, and eyesight is a distinction without substance. There is no reason for God not to have created man with these features, so, as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved. Unlike scars, etc., fingernails, hair, and eyesight are ''design features'', not the products of wear and tear, and for that matter, are present from conception in the form of genetic information.
:: I did miss reading your reference about different views on apparent age. It is a reasonable summary of the different positions as far as it goes, but doesn't really get into the problems with each view very much. It lists the "theological questions" as being non-existent for the (misnamed) "Ham" view, but not for your view; although it only discusses what these problems are in the briefest possible way. It says that the "Ham" view has the most "scientific challenges", but accepts ''a priori'' that those "challenges" really are ''scientific'', which the "Ham" view rejects (i.e. it takes sides). "Conventional" geology ''starts'' by rejecting the biblical account (Hutton said that geology must be based only on the processes we see happening today. We don't see global floods happening today, so he's ruled out the biblical account ''by decree''). On the other side of the coin, the Bible [[Creation week|''unambiguously'']] says that the entire period of time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. The biblical problems with an "old" Earth are insurmountable. The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible.
:: In any debate, the two sides need to start with common ground. And when there is not even common ground regarding such basic things as how we came to be, then debate necessarily must start there. It does help, however, to not misrepresent the other side as "dogma" nor the debate as one between the Bible and science.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

::: I'll start by admitting I wasn't in the best of moods when I replied, and could have kept the debate more civil, for that I'm sorry. My problem is that I feel like I'm searching for answers but only being given half truths or interpretations.
::: In the first few hundred years after a global flood, I could not begin to imagine what the environment might be like. I have no idea if I'm honest; there would most likely be a wealth of plant and insect life in some areas, and if we accept that God willed for no creatures but those on Noah's Arc to survive, there would be a distinct lack of animal life. I would imagine that it would not take many years for desert to be re-established however, owing that only very specialized plants can exist for ''any'' length of time without rainfall. I would also imagine that the environment in the years after a global catastrophe would not be a stable environment, but I wouldn't like to go beyond that.
::: "''If you've got enough of the animals around...''" Surely after Noah's flood there were only a limited number of animals, who then also had to be in adolesence, or between dependency and maturity?
::: The story I get is this; that Noah's arc has successfully traversed a global flood. The animals are then set free and set to disperse across the land as they choose. The creatures are venturing off in all directions across the Earth, to find their new homes in what is currently a brutally ravashed planet. The roos head towards the Australian continent - I would assume - by travelling the tough, mostly mountainous route through modern Pakistan and India towards South East Asia, or alternatively, assuming they are the right age, floating a great distance towards the Southern tip of India. From here they passed through Thailand and Malaysia and then set off to Indonesia - given that sea levels were much lower and assuming therefore that land was more accessable - where they had to face their first sizeable stretch of water. This they crossed with the right timing between being dependent and fully grown, and also with the right timing that they could populate this new found home without being followed by the predators who had hunted them across the rest of the world, wiping out their ancestors and therefore leaving the only remaining colony and fossil records upon a giant continent 6500 miles from their original starting place. Please excuse me if I've missed any details and allow me to add that this seems highly far-fetched to me.
::: Yes, I'm sorry for the inaccuracy of earth-age, I didn't have time to double check the figures on that. That is an interesting point about the evolution rate. It would seem it would have needed to be a "hot" period for evolution, e.g. more changes than one every 41,000 generations. If this is the general rate of evolution then it hardly seems likely for human beings to have evolved in a "short" space of time from a common ancestor. It should be noted as well though, that the bacteria in Lenski's research were not exposed to the number of environmental variations as evolving human beings would have been, and given that natural selection is based on environmental interaction, this is likely to affect the rate of evolution. There are also recent genetic theories which may make the idea more plausible, by suggesting that evolution works on codes that an organism already has embedded in it's genetic data, and that there is a method of "''unlocking''" these unused genes. I don't know the exact science behind this so it's only a theory, but obvisouly this would create the capacity for a quicker rate of visible changes in species if it was observed.
::: That was my point for the age of the earth - that there would be a more complete fossil record if the earth was only 6,000 years old, but if the earth were ≈ 4 billion years old, you would expect to find gaps in the fossil record. Radiodating may not be absolutely accurate, nor the science fool-proof, but it can safely give the conclusion that something is very old, and when coupled with other data this is usually accepted as fact. Given that, it is not true that the fossils we find, which are recorded as being older than any historical records to accompany and verify them, should be rejected as absolutely false. Besides that, there is other evidence which points to an earth older than 6,000 years - evidence of the Ancient Chinese, Mesopotamian and Ancient Mesoamerican cultures being some, and reference by Egyptian Pharaohs such as Khufu, and philosophers such as Plato and alike who speak of ancient races, thousands of years before their own [http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/ataw102.html].
::: I understand the difference between observations in that sense. What I meant was that Darwin travelled to the very corners of the earth to sudy animals, plants, geology, fossils and the conclusion he drew was based on his observations of his environment. It is an observable hypothesis in that you can visit remote islands and see the mutations or adaptations which have occured to species there in a relatively small amount of time, and there is even a definite divergence in remote populations in the homo genus [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html]. What you have seemed to outline to me is that creationist science accepts gene mutation, but not as dramatically as ''"goo-to-man"'', so it is a matter of degree which we are debating.
::: ''"as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved..."'' You seem to have mistaken my point for an argument against the existence of God? I was using it as an argument ''for'' the existence of God; that all scientific study we do into the history of the earth and the universe is in reality a study into God's mind before the ultimate conception of human beings. The appearance of fingernails and hair etc. are not appearances of age, nor proof that God ''didn't'' create Adam, they would be - if Adam had a full head of hair and fully grown fingernails - an apparent sign that he had ''grown'' fingernails and hair, as human beings are born mostly without. The argument was an argument that seeks to bring together scientific discovery with religious belief by saying that all scientific exploration into an ancient universe is acceptable as long as we remember that we are exploring into the history of the world in the mind of God, rather than any physical reality. It was more addressed out of interest than as something I believe.
::: ''"The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible."'' Most of the original geologists, biologists and other scientists who uncovered some of the mysteries of the earth were in fact Christian. Even Darwin himself was Christian, and he did not seek in any way to disprove the Bible when he began his studies. As is the scientific way, he made his observations and drew his conclusions based upon them. I suppose it comes down to a single principle, that I believe the Bible is ''another man's interpretation'' of the word of God, given that it was written by men, and opposing that, you believe that it is the ''literal'' word of God. And we will probably never get past that. However, my belief is that scientific problems do not arise solely from someone who ''didn't believe'' the Bible. The scientific problems would arise say, from someone who had never read the Bible. If he studied the rocks of the earth, and from his data concluded everything about the earth as scientists had, and concluded it to be ≈ 4 billion years old, then, should he one day come to read the Bible, he would not accept it as being the word of God in any capacity, and definitely not literally. However, someone who read the Bible, was taught with the belief that it was the literal word of God and had maybe even had a religious experience in their life would, upon reading the first man's work, believe him to be lying or making it up. The second man may then seek to prove the first man wrong, even though the first man believes he has already proved the second man wrong. The second man may interpret things differently or find flaws in the first man's findings and then challenge his views. The first man would respond with his own data and in turn challenge the views of the second man and so on and so on, untill no resolution is found. If both men just admitted they were both partially wrong, and that neither of them could claim to know everything, then the two men together would be able to share their wealth of knowledge and even gain a new level of understanding of the universe. Or so I wish.
:::I have enjoyed this debate, even if I would have liked to establish some more common ground, and I hope I haven't offended you - through my ignorence or otherwise - because that is not my objective. In truth, I am selfishly wanting to learn but selflessly wanting to teach, and I hope you appreciate this and can show the patience you have so far. Thanks for your time.
::: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

=== Any suggestions, part 2 ===
''(Editing section break; discussion continued from above)''

:::: Your post-flood description is reasonable, although I'd make the following comments:
::::* I don't follow the reference to deserts and specialised plants existing without rainfall. There would likely be a relatively high precipitation after the flood, which would mitigate against deserts.
::::* Your description does not address the point that you raised in this regard, that the kangaroos "would have passed through many different environments in getting to Australia".
:::: How many animals there were after the Flood would depend on just how many years after the flood you are talking about. It may have taken kangaroos a few hundred years to reach Australia. In fact, creationists propose that the [[Ice Age]] lasted around 500 years after the flood, so if they reached Australia just before rising post-ice-age sea levels rose, then perhaps this gives an indication of when they arrived. By several hundred years after the flood, there could have been millions of kangaroos.
:::: Your description of the post-flood dispersion of animals is also reasonable, except for the comment that the kangaroos "head towards the Australian continent". I said earlier that they likely headed in several directions, but only the ones reaching Australia survived (until modern times). Kangaroos are not limited to dwelling on plains; they are right at home in forested and hilly areas also, so mountainous country would not necessarily be an obstacle (I'd think they travelled as much as possible by land). By the time they reached bodies of water to cross, there would be many kangaroos from joeys to fully-grown adults, so there being ones of a suitable size and age to cross the water requires no stretch of imagination at all. I don't see what is particularly far-fetched about that explanation at all.
:::: Your argument about the rate of evolution is an ''ad hoc'' one to explain why the evidence doesn't fit the theory. That's not to say that it's wrong of course, but the point is that Lenski's experiments provide evidence that doesn't fit with the theory without invoking other, unseen, factors (faster rates in the past). Furthermore, Lenski has also found[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990119080707.htm] that there seems to be a limit to how fast organisms can evolve, so your suggestion about what would need to be ''much'' faster rates seems ''contrary'' to the evidence.
:::: Perhaps (although I'm not convinced) humans would have experienced a greater range of environmental pressures, but that wouldn't make ''that'' much difference to account for the orders-of-magnitude shortfall in the mutation rate. Furthermore, you have more opportunities for mutations with larger populations, and Lenski apparently had ''trillions'' of bacteria, which provide ''many'' more opportunities than for humans.
:::: Yes, there is evidence of genetic data being "unlocked", but this raises more questions than it solves for evolution (such as how did this information appear and get selected for if it was "locked" and therefore contributed no survival value?)
:::: Radiometric dating has so many problems that it ''can't'' "safely give the conclusion that something is very old", and it is usually accepted as fact simply because and when it gives the dates the researchers are after. Given that, fossil dates cannot be used to reject an accurate historical account and much scientific evidence that say that they are much younger.
:::: Although there are some claims of historical dates older than 6,000 years, there's really very little such evidence that is very strong. The Egyptian king lists are supposed to go back further than allowed on a biblical timescale, but dates assigned to these lists did not allow for overlapping reins, and Egyptian chronology today is is much dispute.
:::: Darwin's conclusions were based, in part at least, on his ''beliefs'', not just on his observations. He didn't see mutations nor adaptations happening; he saw variations that he ''attributed'' to adaptations. And the adaptations he saw are consistent with a creationary view (see more below).
:::: There is not "definite" divergence in populations of the homo genus. The classification of the beings that you link to is still very much in dispute, and could in fact be homo sapiens[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5525/].
:::: Yes, creationists accept gene ''mutations'', but no, it's not a matter of degree. It's a matter of ''direction''. That is, evolution requires increasing amounts of genetic information. The first living cell had no information for blood, bone, livers, eyeballs, and so on. Evolution had to supply this extra information. The mutations and adaptations we observe are not the result of ''new'' information, but the ''loss'' of information. For example, sightless fish adapted to living in dark caves have ''lost'' the information for sight. This sort of loss is all that Darwin observed. But evolution requires ''new'' information in huge quantities, and such new information has never been observed, except perhaps in a few disputed examples, but still nothing like the amounts that evolution requires.
:::: I'm not sure that I follow your argument about science being an argument for God's existence. It seems to be saying that we are free to assume that what we study is actually a study of what was going on in God's mind before He created, but this is ''not'' what is generally claimed, and as such cannot be an ''argument for'' God's existence.
:::: Yes, most of the early geologists, biologists, and other scientists were indeed Christians, but these were generally not the ones who argued for an old Earth. Darwin's Christianity was fairly nominal to begin with, but he soon discarded it, and it was already being doubted in his mind before he came up with the idea of evolution. Historians of evolution have actually said that evolution was intended as a substitute for Christianity.
:::: Perhaps you've simply not been clear, but I don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. I believe that God "ghost-wrote" it using human authors (their words, his ideas and ultimate control), and that it ''contains'' literal history as well as parable, euphemisms, metaphors, and other non-literal passages. This is based on what the Bible itself claims as well as logic and evidence, not on wishful thinking.
:::: Your description of two different views of history, Bible-based and not Bible-based, is interesting and makes sense, but at the very least it acknowledges that what we believe about the past is based on our worldview (biblical, non-biblical, etc.), rather than (solely) on hard evidence. Creationists don't claim that creation can be scientifically proven, but point out that evolution and long ages are similarly based on worldviews, not absolute evidence. However, it's also true that much of the support of evolution and long ages has come not from people ignorant of the Bible, but from people opposed to it. Further, your description falsely insinuates that those that believe the Bible do so solely because that's what they are taught, rather than on the basis of other evidence, as opposed to the other person who hasn't read the Bible and bases his views on scientific evidence. This is not an argument about science vs. the Bible, but about the science of one worldview (Christianity) vs. the science of another worldview (atheism).
:::: I've not found your posts to be offensive at all, and appreciate the civil debate.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Rename ==

Can somebody rename this article "Pangaea," as this is the proper spelling? I'm not sure how to rename articles (or if this is even possible). If nobody responds I'm going to just move this to the Pangaea page and redirect it. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 16:33, 15 February 2009 (EST)
: Please first convince us that it is the proper spelling and not just an alternative spelling. Wikipedia lists it under ''Pangaea'', but lists ''Pangæa'' and ''Pangea'' as alternatives but seemingly without explaining the differences. Britannica lists it under ''Pangea'', although lists ''Pangaea'' as an alternative form.
: Only administrators can rename/move articles, and renaming/moving is much better than creating a new page and copying the content as the article then retains its history.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)
:: The Oxford American Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the Online Etymology Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary of Science all list "Pangaea" as the primary spelling and "Pangea" as a secondary spelling, among other sources. Here is the dictionary.com reference page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pangaea -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 15:55, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::To save what could be a circular argument about semantics, I have created a redirect for Pangaea that should sort out any problems if somebody searches for Pangaea. After all, Pangea does not appear to be incorrect, just an alternate spelling. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 16:02, 16 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does appear that "Pangaea" is the preferred spelling. If nobody provides suitable counter-argument in the next few days, I'll move the page (remind me if I forget). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:::: I would have thought that "Pangea" would be preferred in the US, and "Pangaea" in other countries (similar to US encyclopedia/UK encyclopaedia). If so, it should stay as "Pangea" (but having both spellings direct to the page is obviously a good idea).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:08, 17 February 2009 (EST)

::::: It wouldn't surprise me to be an American spelling, but in my moderate research into the spelling, nowhere did I find anybody saying that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Also, notice that all of the sources I cited as listing "Pangaea" as the primary spelling are American resources. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 21:02, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Pangea

2009-03-14T08:40:50Z

Philip J. Rayment: Pangea moved to Pangaea over redirect: Per talk

#REDIRECT [[Pangaea]]

Pangaea

2009-03-14T08:40:50Z

Philip J. Rayment: Pangea moved to Pangaea over redirect: Per talk

'''Pangaea''' (Greek Spelling) or "Pangea" is the name given to the supercontinent believed to have broken up into the existing continents.
The supercontinent theory explains the apparent "puzzle piece fittings" of the major continents today.
The name ''Pangea'' came from German [[Alfred Wegener]], a chief proponent of the [[continental drift]] theory, in 1920.

The idea of a single continent breaking up into the ones we have today was first proposed in 1859 by creationist [[Antonio Snider-Pellegrini]], partly on the basis of the description in {{Bible ref|Genesis|1|9-10}}.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf What about continental drift?] Chapter 11 of The Creation Answers Book (2007).</ref>
However, the idea was not accepted by others at the time.
Even after Wegener resurrected the idea, it took another half century before it came to be widely accepted.

== Young-Earth creationist view ==

Although some creationists have proposed that the division of the Earth in [[Peleg]]'s time is a reference to the continental break up, most creationists have it occurring during the [[Great Flood|Flood of Noah's time]].
One of the leading scientific models of continental drift is that produced by [[John Baumgardner]], who says that the model works best as a rapid breakup (i.e. within the year of the Flood) rather than the slow and gradual breakup of the uniformitarian view.

== Uniformitarian view ==

According to the uniformitarian time-scale, Pangea existed during the [[Paleozoic]] and [[Mesozoic]] eras about 250 million years ago, before the process of [[plate tectonics]] separated Pangaea into the continents we have today.

Some scientists theorize that Pangaea first began to break up in the Early-Middle [[Jurassic]], when Pangaea created a rift from the [[Tethys Ocean]] from the east and the [[Pacific]] from the west.
The rifting took place between North America and Africa, and produced multiple failed rifts, the Mississippi River being the largest.
The rift resulted in a new ocean, which today we call the [[Atlantic]].

The second major division of the Pangea continent occurred 150 million years ago, when the minor supercontinent of ''Gondwana'' divided up into its respective modern continents: [[South America]], [[Africa]] and [[India]].
Also, the continent of ''Cimmeria'' collided with ''Eurasia'', causing a [[subduction zone]] called the ''Tethyan Trench''.

At the same time, [[Madagascar]], [[Australia]] and [[India]] are thought to have separated from [[Antarctica]] and moved North.
While [[Madagascar]] has since locked on the African Plate, [[India]] and [[Australia]] continue to move at about 5-6 cm a year.

== External link ==
* [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Pangea_animation_03.gif An animation of Pangea breaking up].

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

[[Category:Geology]]

Conservapedia:Featured articles

2009-03-06T02:46:46Z

Philip J. Rayment: I've submitted my resignation of this committee to this committee.

<center>



'''Featured articles'''



</center>

<div style="border:red solid 1px; padding:0.5em; margin:0 0 .5em .5em; float:right">
<center><big>'''Committee members'''</big></center>
* [[user:DeanS|DeanS]]
* [[user:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]]
* [[user:Joaquín Martínez‎|Joaquín Martínez‎]]
* [[user:Learn together|Learn together]]
* [[User:TK|TK]]
</div>
The '''Featured articles''' are posted on the [[Main Page]] each week. '''35''' articles have been featured to date. Articles may be submitted to the list of featured articles by listing them on the talk page.
Please add them to the end of the list.
Articles will normally be featured in the order listed, but the order may be changed by the committee in some cases.

Articles listed here will be considered for featuring by the committee.
Editors may offer their own comments and are welcome to help improve the listed articles.

== Past articles ==

[[Featured articles. Past articles.]] '''2007/08'''

{{fa|Sculpture|hide=yes
:*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 9 November 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. Nice one! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 05:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Edgar Allan Poe| }}

::because of his 200 years anniversary.

{{fa|Hirohito|hide=yes
:*Agree.[[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Talk]] 07:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:02, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Tokyo Rose|hide=yes
:* Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:* Agree. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:* Agree. --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:02, 3 December 2008 (EST)
}}

{{fa|United Methodist Church|hide=yes
:* Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 07:30, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. I'm impressed, this is a good article! [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:00, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 05:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)
}}
{{fa|The Divine Comedy|hide=yes
:* Agree (I'm proposing it). Nicely illustrated and informative, and links to lots of other interesting pages about morality, literature, religion and mythology.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:* Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. A lot of work's been put into this baby, I can tell. A job well done, guys! [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:00, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Strongly agree. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 05:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)
}}

== Current article ==

{{fa|Global warming|
:*Agree. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 01:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 07:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)
}}

== Future articles ==

The following articles should be checked for any improvements that can be made before they are posted to the Main Page.

== Proposed for featuring ==

The following articles will probably be moved to the list above in the order listed if nobody has any objection or alternative suggestion.

New suggestions can be added at the ''end'' of this list.

{{fa|Financial Crisis of 2008|
:*Agree. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. Great analysis of the whole mess. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 05:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 01:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Attack on Pearl Harbor|
:*Agree [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 13:01, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. Perhaps move this out of order, given this is anniversary day? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 13:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree. I concur with TK even though this article is public domain material from the U.S. government. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:09, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:*Neutral. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:26, 7 December 2008 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Benjamin Franklin|
:*Agree. --[[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 07:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)
}}

{{fa|A-7 Corsair II|
:*Neutral. I like airplane articles, but this one looks a little short. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:31, 3 March 2009 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Isaac Newton|
:*Agree. Sizable article with detail about religious beliefs and scientific contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
:*Agree. Well-written article. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:31, 3 March 2009 (EST)
}}

{{fa|Riemann integral|
:*Agree. A math article with detailed explanation and examples. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
:*Agree, found very informative.
}}

{{fa|Eugene Delacroix|
:* Agree, I made it. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:*Disagree, not nearly long enough. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:31, 3 March 2009 (EST)
}}

==Past Nominations==
The following articles were proposed and determined not to be suitable for featuring. If the article has been improved to the point where it is of sufficient quality to be featured, move it back to Proposed for Featuring. Click the ''show'' link after each entry to see why it was rejected.
{{fa|Colorado Springs|hide=yes|
:*Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Too short; a good start but needs more info; too many red links. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:21, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Too short. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Johns Hopkins University|hide=true|
:*Disagree. Too short. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Underdeveloped. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:01, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:*'''Disagree''' Unfortunately this article is far too short to feature at this time. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Too short. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Amused To Death|hide=true|
:*Disagree. Unimportant topic and drug influenced album. This isn't Wikipedia. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:10, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Poorly written, unimportant topic. Serious rewrite needed before featuring. [[User:JY23|#1denverfan]] 19:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:49, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree, per what #1denverfan said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:13, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Battle of Gettysburg|hide=true|
:*Disagree; I do not feel that this article fully covers the battle, particularly the 20th Maine. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 00:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree; I do not think that public domain material from the U.S. government should be featured material (such as country articles, ship articles, etc) unless the article has been extensively re-worked by any of the editors to make it better. [[Mexico]] (see above) may fall into that category. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree, for the same reason as Karajou, and in fact we rejected this article once before for the same reason, so I'm moving it to the "Past nominations" section now. Now that we have that "Past nominations" sections, hopefully this won't happen again with this article.
}}
{{fa|Sausage|hide=true|
:*Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:* Disagree. No references despite questionable statements and too many red links. I don't think the length is a problem. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
:*Disagree. Nothing against sausages, but hardly a front page Big Theme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:00, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. [[User:Joaquín Martínez]]
}}

{{fa|Deconstruction|hide=yes|
:*Disagree. Unimportant topic of interest mostly to liberals. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Important topic, but not described correctly. Article contains at least one contradiction ("reader response" both wrong and right). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT) Fixed red links and improved. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:16, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. I'm not qualified to judge it's accuracy, but it is too obscure and not written at a suitable level. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Not long enough, too many red links, not nearly enough images that explain the text, I just didn't understand what was going on in that article. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|Holy Days|hide=yes|
:*Disagree. Too short. Too many red links. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Too short. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
:* Agree, will be improved. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree, too short, far too many red links [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Neutral. Would like to see what it looks like after more information added; it could be a good article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree for now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
}}

{{fa|Liberty Bell|hide=yes|
:*Agree. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. Essential topic, but far too short. Anything about the history of the Bell that someone can put? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Vitamin C|hide=yes|
:*Agree. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 22:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:*<s>Agree. Didn't realize I had to voice agreement when I added it to the list. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)</s> Disagree. Now that the copywritten text has been removed this article is hardly as comprehensive. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:06, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree-hardly a good theme and way too short. Far too many red links. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|talk]] 10:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
}}
{{fa|Operation Iraqi Freedom|hide=yes|
:*Agree. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. Good length, citations, and images. [[User:DuncanB|DuncanB]] 21:28, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Agree. --[[User:TK|TK]] 05:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree
}}
{{fa|Alger Hiss|hide=yes|
:* Agree. Found very informative, anti-Communist topic, but far too many red links. [[User:JY23|#1denverfan]] 19:31, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:* Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:* Disagree. A bit more work, will do it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 05:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)
}}
{{fa|Physics|hide=yes|
:* Agree. Haven't had a science article in a while and this one seems fairly well-developed. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:00, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:*Disagree-- red links. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Talk]] 07:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. Too many red links for a featured article. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
}}
{{fa|Bible history|hide=yes|
:* Neutral. Fix the redlinks and it would be a good article, but the section lengths need some work. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
}}
{{fa|Robert Heinlein|hide=yes|
:*Disagree. One section, no photos, unimportant topic. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:21, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. ''Way'' too short; I agree with JY23.[[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Talk]] 07:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
}}
{{fa|KAL 007 Survivors and the Forced Labor Concentration Camps of the Russian Federation|hide=yes|
:*Disagree. Reads like an essay, possibly should be moved to essay section. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:*Disagree. I think this was on Main Page before. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 13:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:*Agree, of course. This was not on main page. This was - [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. I think the remark above about this reading like an essay may be right. I just don't know the exact line between "essay" and "article". Can there be a "featured essay" as a "featured article"
}}

[[Category: Conservapedia Administration]]

Fire

2009-03-05T10:56:32Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Physics of heat and fire */ Revert to linked heading as explained by note following heading.

[[Image:Ugdfiyjfhj6.jpg|right|thumb|A forest fire.]]
'''Fire''' is the result of a [[chemical]] process that produces [[heat]], [[light]], and [[smoke]]. Fire is dependent on oxygen for [[combustion]] and will spread if not controlled.

==Physics of fire==

The "fire triangle" is a term which refers to the three elements necessary for a fire to burn: [[oxygen]], [[fuel]], and a source of [[heat]]. Remove any one of the three and the fire can no longer burn. All firefighting tactics are based on removing one or more of the three elements in the fire triangle.

Types of heat transfer: Radiant, conductive, and convective. Conductive heat is transferred by direct contact with the heat source. Convective heat is transferred by hot gases from the heat source, often to objects above the heat source since heat rises. Radiant heat is transferred through radiation of the heat not involving hot gases. To illustrate, when you hold a metal spoon in a cup of hot coffee and feel the spoon get hot, this is conductive heat. When you stand near a campfire and feel the heat on your face, this is radiant heat. When hot steam is rising from a boiling pot of water, this is convective heat.

==Christian symbolism==

One of the symbols of the [[Holy Ghost]] is fire (eg the tongues of fire in Acts 2:3). Fire is also used frequently to depict [[Hell]]; many Christians disagree on whether Hell contains literal flames or whether the flames are meant as a metaphor. According to the Bible much of the [[earth]] will be destoyed by fire during the [[end times]].(Revelation 8:7)

==See also==
* [[Firefighting]]
* [[Fire drill]]
* [[Prometheus]]
[[category:chemistry]]

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2009-03-05T10:45:31Z

Philip J. Rayment: Replies go /after/ the posts they are replying to.

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

If one looks at the real evidence, the evidence being the book of Genesis, and the rest of the bible, the true word, the world is really only about 6000 years old. The Bible talks of many different aspects of history, and in almost all cases has other historical weight behind its claims other to itself. If the Bible can be seen as a valid historical source, providing accurate evidence when it is read literally, it is only logical to read all its aspects with absolute trust. When this is done it works the world to be 6000 years old, therefore the world is about 6000 years old. You can't just pick and choose what to read literally and what not to. The meaning of the bible can't be used by humans like this, otherwise we could make it mean anything. The Bible is an instrument of teaching, as previously mentioned. If a history book for lessons was not to be taken literally, it would not be suitable for real learning, therefore the Bible must be taken literally for it to have any relavence whatsoever! I would argue it is not a matter of personal opinion as mentioned in a revious post by Futsunushi, something is simply written to be taken literally or allegorically, in this case it is literal. You do not read a book that was written to be read literally, in an allegorical fashion, if you took the personal opinion to read it like this you would be being stupid and illogical. End of story. --[[User:Badger15|Badger15]] 13:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam

Subway

2009-03-05T09:29:32Z

Philip J. Rayment: Avoid redirect.

For the sandwich restaurant, see [[Subway (restaurant)]]

A '''Subway''' is the North American term for a rapid transit system that runs underground for much or all of its route. Outside North America, they may be known as an underground, metro, or mass transit railway. Subways require large populations to run efficiently and run at a "grade separation" from other vehicles and run frequently. This means that they exist in the largest cities.

The first subway was opened in [[London]] in 1863, (where it is called the "[[Underground]]") although many more major cities now have subways systems. The [[Boston]] subway opened in 1901 and the [[New_York_City|New York]] subway first opened in 1904.

==List of cities with subways==
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
'''Subways of the World'''
|-
! City !! System Name
|-
|[[Barcelona]], [[Spain]]|| Barcelona Metro
|-
|[[Beijing]], [[People's Republic of China|China]] || Beijing Metro
|-
|[[Berlin]], [[Germany]] || U-Bahn
|-
|[[Boston]], [[United States]]|| Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (or "T")
|-
|[[Budapest]], [[Hungary]] || Budapest Metro
|-
|[[Chicago]], [[United States]]|| Chicago "L"
|-
|[[Edmonton]], [[Canada]]|| Light Rail Transit (LRT)
|-
|[[Glasgow]], [[United Kingdom]]|| Glasgow Subway
|-
|[[Hong Kong]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]|| 地铁 Mass Transit Railway (MTR)
|-
|[[London]], [[United Kingdom]]|| [[London Underground|Underground (official)]] Tube (colloquial)
|-
|[[Los Angeles]], [[United States]]|| Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
|-
|[[Montreal]], [[Canada]]|| Metro de Montréal
|-
|[[Moscow]], [[Russia]]||Moscow Metro
|-
|[[New York City]], [[United States]]|| Subway
|-
|[[Washington DC]], [[United States]]|| [[Metrorail]]
|-
|[[Paris]], [[France]] || Métropolitain (abbreviated Métro)
|-
|[[Philadelphia]], [[United States]]||SEPTA
|-
|[[Pyongyang]], [[North Korea|Democratic People's Republic of Korea]]||Pyongyang Metro
|-
|[[San Francisco Bay Area]] , [[United States]]|| [[Bay Area Rapid Transit]] (BART)
|-
|[[Shenzhen]], [[People's Republic of China|China]] || 深圳地铁 Shenzhen Metro
|-
| [[Shanghai]], [[People's Republic of China|China]] || Shanghai Metro
|-
|[[Singapore]] || Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)
|-
|[[Tehran]], [[Iran]]||Tehran Metro
|-
|[[Toronto]], [[Canada]] || Toronto subway and RT
|-

[[Category: Rail transport]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-03-05T08:56:28Z

Philip J. Rayment: /* Comments Section */ Responding to Ieuan.

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
 


== Comments Section ==

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.

::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

::::Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

* Section (a) lists the offenses.
* Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
* Section (c) lists the punishments
* Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
* Section (e) defines terms
* Section (f) allows legal investigations
* Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
* Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
* Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
* Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
* Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
* Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
* Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
* Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
* Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

:Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:*And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another [[liberal deceit]], a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::*Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"? And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction? Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::: The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
:::: ''(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—''

::::''(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);''
::::''(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or''
::::''(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;''

:::: As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information. It's an objective test of both ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' (i.e. Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information). This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained. The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the ''obtaining'' of information not the ''depositing'' or ''removal'' of information. The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details). Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::::Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment. It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual. As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests. Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm. Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030. It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:

::::'''''Subsection (1):''' having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,…''— obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))

::::'''''Subsection (1) cont.:'''…or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;''— Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.

::::'''''Subsection (2)''''' See above post.

::::'''''Subsection (3):''' intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States. Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (4):''' (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;''— Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds. The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization. That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes. A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users. However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}). That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes. Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the ''mens rea'' of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud. When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal. Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.

::::'''''Subsection (5):''''' It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.

::::'''''(A)'''''
::::''(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;''
::::''(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or''
::::''(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and…''

::::This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
::::i) '…intentionally causes damage……recklessly causes damage……causes damage…'— Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs. Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism. Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
::::ii) '…without authorization…'— As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely. The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.

::::'''''…(B)''' by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—''
::::''(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''
::::''(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;''
::::''(iii) physical injury to any person;''
::::''(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or''
::::''(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; ''

::::And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (''loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;''). Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done). Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.

::::'''''Subsection (6):''' knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—''
::::''(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or''
::::''(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;''— Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.

::::'''''Subsection (7):''' with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;''— Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Perhaps I'm talking through my hat not being a lawyer, but I would disagree with a couple of points there, although not enough to change your overall conclusion.
::::: "''That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.''": No, granting full editing rights does ''not'' grant the user the ''authorisation'' (as opposed to ''ability'') to vandalise.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::Aha, we're back. I've noticed that four questions have been raised. I think that in an edit summary somebody wanted to know whether I have any legal training. Yes, plus years of experience working in many specialties including US federal law (although not State level laws, too many States and not much call for that kind of specialty in the UK).
::::Karajou asked:''"The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?"''. If it was up to me, given that I know only the basics of the case, I would look to prosecute under 18 § 1030 s(ection):(A), s(ub)s(ection):(5), s(ub)p(aragraph): (A/iii) & sp: (B/iii), and, by a quick look it appears that the state law of Missouri at the time didn't seem to cover this situation ([http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/02/06/news/local_state/154433.txt this] excellent article explains a bit more, as does [http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/683421.html this one] {tenth paragraph down}). I won't go into exacting detail why I would choose 18 § 1030 but the basic argument I would have used in a prosecution would have been '''''i)'''''The messages were sent and received through My Space, a site that fulfills the requirements to be a 'protected computer' through virtue of the fact that access to any relevant service that MySpace offers can only be enjoyed when a someone signs up for an account. If somebody doesn't sign up to an account then the services that MySpace offers can't be accessed. You will notice that a different system of operation applies to a wiki however. The main service of a wiki is to provide information, and access to that information is given freely to the public, thereby removing any argument that the site is a private or protected computer. '''''ii)'''''Acquiring an account at MySpace means signing up to a legally binding contract that specifically delineates the exact authorisation that a user has to access and use the services available, that would mean that behaviour such as harrassment of another individual would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the contract. Breaching the terms of the contract means that the user is acting without authorization. Again this is different to the current setup of Conservapedia where a user creates an account to acquire the ability to edit it as this signing up procedure doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a contract (I won't go into details about why not, but to use legal jargon the procedure that the user goes through to become a volunteer at the site doesn't meet the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law consideration] test for a contract, plus it fails to meet the requirements to form a legally binding contract in other ways as well). Without a contract that sets out the exact level of authorisation that a user has in terms of editing it becomes a lot more difficult to say exactly where that authorisation begins and ends ''purely from a legal point of view''. '''''iii)'''''The last part of sp:(A/iii) reads ''"…causes damage"''. I think it is this part that causes the most problems if you wanted to bring a prosecution in the above case. If you read sp: (A/i) it clearly states ''"intentionally causes damage…to a protected computer"'', whereas sp: (A/ii) & (A/iii) just talk about causing damage, it doesn't specify what too. However A/i, A/ii and A/iii are all part of the same paragraph and therefore obviously linked, so that raises a quandrey within the courts about how that part of the statute should be read. The court could decide that given that A/i states that the damage must be done to a computer then the intent of the framers of the law was that the same applies to the rest of the subparagraph (i.e. any damage caused would have to be done to a computer). Or the court could decide to take a literal interpretation of the law (i.e. parts A/ii and A/iii don't state that the damage has to occur to a specific object). Again, if it was me arguing the case I would try and argue the latter, and that the damage caused in A/iii was the severe psychological trauma caused to the victim, but I wouldn't be confident of winning that argument. And finally '''''iv)''''' sp: (B/iii) requires that ''"physical injury to any person"'' occurs. In this particular case that, obviously, would be the suicide of the teenager.
::::And the last two questions were Philip J. Rayment's. On the first question, as I mentioned above, I see your point, it can be very difficult to see how a court would decide on the question of 'without authorization' when there is no legal binding contract to point out the exact extent of a user's authorisation. But the basis of US law is the same as the basis of English and Welsh law, Scottish law, Northern Ireland law and I'm guessing Australian law (given the shared heritage), in that the whole foundation of the law is that it is designed to define what is forbidden, and what isn't forbidden is allowed. That sounds obvious, but other legal systems (such as France's) often work on the principle that the law is there to define what you are allowed to do (i.e. what isn't allowed is forbidden). There is no specific US federal law that prohibits making unhelpful edits to Conservapedia, as long as those edits aren't furthering terrorism or in some way violate 18 U.S.C. § 2425, so without some way of saying that those edits are specifically illegal (i.e specifically violate laws preventing terrorism or those sections covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2425, or violated the terms and conditions laid out in a legally binding contract) it would, at best, be extremely difficult to argue that those edits were made without authorisation. As to the second question, that of cost, again it all comes down to how the law is argued in court. Obviously this specific law was never designed to cover wikis, but instead was designed to protect online businesses, businesses that rely on computers, or the US Government. Obviously, monetary damages to all of those are relatively easy to qunatify (how much did it cost to repair the damage, how much did it cost you to lose that information, how much did it cost you to make relevant changes to your security systems, how much did it cost you in lost business). Wikis on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to determine how much damage has been done monetarily when an unhelpful edit is made. Reverting that edit requires time, certainly, but that time is given freely by a volunteer, so no cost. Extra bandwidth and storage space? Well, if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and replaces it with 4 then the edit has actually reduced the cost of running Conservpedia, based on storage costs.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

::::: Thanks for the response to my points. On the first one, the authorisation issue, I accept your point about there being no law nor legally-binding contract regarding what is and what is not authorised.
::::: On the cost of the vandalism, I'd still argue that you are wrong (but still in the context that the cost would be very minor), as if the edit removes 2000 words from a page and adds four, to use your example, the storage requirement is ''increased'', as the database still stores those 2000 removed words, as well as the four new ones. This is obvious from the mere fact that you can view the history of the article and see those 2000 words in the history. And from the fact that any editor can revert back to those 2000 words, thereby creating yet another record in the database (although whether that new record duplicates those 2000 words or simply points to the older record I don't know). Even deleted pages and deleted ('oversighted') edits are still in the database taking up room unless specifically removed by someone with required rights.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Please un-archive the current discussion==

I have been interested in following the recent discussion here, and would prefer that it not be archived for a little while. Many of the posters provided food for thought, including PJR. It can only benefit us to better understand our situation, and one way to do that is to dig into the text of the law and discuss it with others, who may see things differently. Listening to others' points of view can help us see our own blind spots, and/or can help strengthen our understanding as to why we are in fact right. ''Both'' of these are good outcomes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)