Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:SLionel

2013-04-28T19:19:29Z

SLionel:

I love my Ducks.

User talk:SLionel

2013-04-28T19:18:46Z

SLionel: Blanked the page

University of Oregon

2013-04-28T18:48:09Z

SLionel: /* Athletics */

{{University
|name=University of Oregon
|image=
|text=rgb(255,204,0)
|background=rgb(0,79,39)
|type=Public
|city=Eugene, Oregon
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis, track and field, volleyball, wrestling<ref name="sports">http://goducks.com/</ref>
|colors=green, yellow
|mascot=The Oregon Duck
|website=http://www.uoregon.edu/
}}
The '''University of Oregon''' (or "the UO") is an [[Oregon]] [[public schools|public]] [[university]] chartered in 1872.<ref>http://www.uoregon.edu/~uocomm/newsreleases/facts/history.html</ref> The school is located in Eugene, Oregon, two hours away from Portland.<ref>http://www.uoregon.edu/about.shtml</ref> It ranked #112 in US News's 2008 "National [[University|Universities]]: Top Schools" list.<ref>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php</ref>
==Athletics==
Oregon has 9 women's and 8 men's [[sports]] teams.<ref name="sports" /> The historically most important program to the university has been track and field. Under Bill Bowerman, they won several national championships and produced several olympians as well as some of the best American milers and distance runners including the legendary [[Steve Prefontaine]]. An interesting side note: Bill Bowerman and one of his former runners, Phil Knight, collaborated to form Nike, one of America's largest athletics corporations.<ref>http://www.thebowerman.org/about/bill-bowerman</ref> Of further historical note is Hayward field, the U of O track. Hayward field has hosted nine USATF championships and five Olympic trials. Hayward field is slated to host the 2016 US Olympic Track and Field Team trials.<ref>http://www.usatf.org/News/U-S--Olympic-Team-Trials-to-return-to-TrackTown-in.aspx</ref> In the last ten years, the U of O track program has produced several of the worlds best athletes, some of whom include Andrew Wheating, Galen Rupp (won silver in the 2012 Olympic 10k), Ashton Eaton (won gold at the 2012 London olympics and is current world record holder in the decathlon), and Jordan Hasay. <ref>http://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/index.ssf/2013/04/ashton_eaton_on_improving_his.html</ref><ref>http://www.usatf.org/Athlete-Bios/Galen-Rupp.aspx</ref> More recently the Ducks' Football program has become a powerhouse, particularly since 2007 when Chip Kelly became the Offensive Coordinator.<ref>http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=500&ATCLID=803271</ref> After Kelly became head coach in 2009, the Ducks proceeded to go to four straight BCS bowls, winning the PAC-12 title three times in a row. Notably, in 2010 (Kelly's second year as head coach) they went undefeated in the regular season and played Auburn in the BCS national championship.<ref>http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/oregon_database.htm</ref><ref>http://legacy.philadelphiaeagles.com/eagles_files/html/kelly_c_1.html</ref> The men's basketball program won the first national championship in 1939.<ref>http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/history</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Nb_US_universities}}

Talk:Social Justice

2013-04-28T18:22:46Z

SLionel: Proposing changes

== Intro Seems Inaccurate ==
I dare say the intro may even be parody. I think the section describing the Catholic Church's view on Social Justice is a more accurate view point for the article as a whole. In particular, I think the line "However, this is a trap promoted by liberal Christianity claiming Jesus was a socialist. We are to help the less fortunate but we are not to become the less fortunate in the process" is wrong and somewhat deceptive. I think the old passage in the Bible "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" is both highly relevant and contradictory to that line. [[User:SLionel|SLionel]][[User_Talk:SLionel|Say "hi!"]] 14:22, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-22T05:07:56Z

SLionel: /* Does it really exist */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Oh yes, but a) I don't use them and b) there is the same kind of limit on electron microscopes, I just don't want to go into the quantum explanations, don't miss the point ;) --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the tax collector make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Changed taxpayer to tax collector. ''Matthew 21:31 "Truly I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."'' It leads me to believe that many who shouldn't, are there out of His divine mercy. So 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 fall to the abyss.-[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
===Does it really exist===
I realize that my personal theology is rather liberal, but I have a hard time believing that an infinitely merciful god would have a special place reserved to torture those who don`t quite measure up. And I think the sentence to the damned deserved to be considered as well... it`s not just a flogging or anything of the like... its infinite amounts of pain for an infinite amount of time. I just doesn`t add up to me. Furthermore, this would require god to be vengeful, which would in turn require God to posses human emotions. A truly transcendent god wouldn`t have human emotions. I may just be following JP2`s views (God bless him!) when I say this, but I seriously doubt there is a literal hell. --[[User:SLionel|SLionel]] 00:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:So your a Universalist? And the punishment fits the crime perfectly: God is Infinite and Eternal, and your crime is Sin, or rebellion against God. What punishment will truly absolve you of such a crime besides eternal punishment? Yes, god is loving and all of that, but he IS just, and demands justice for crimes. Furthermore, do you have biblical proof to deny hell exists? Because theres plenty of proof in the bible it does.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::Yes, but there`s also biblical proof that Jesus and God are loving. What crime in your opinion is deserving of infinite punishment? I can`t think of one, myself. As for your first question, maybe, I don`t know what a universalist is :) .--[[User:SLionel|SLionel]][[User_Talk:SLionel|Say "hi!"]] 00:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Universalism]], which is Heresy. And what crime? Sin, like I already said. You elevate one portion of god over the other. The fact ANY of us are allowed to go to heaven at all is proof god is loving. The fact you are allowed to live another second every day is proof god is loving, he could easily just let us all die here and now, or let us all be damned to hell and he would still be as just and fair. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:42, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::By whose standard is it heresy? ...I digress. Sin is turning away from God? hm. Perhaps there is hell for some. But the theology leads me to believe that unless you completely cut yourself off from God and all that is good, you wouldn`t find a spot in the sulfurous lake. Once again, I may be missing the point, but I can`t see how anyone could do that, save maybe a serial killer, or the like. --[[User:SLionel|SLionel]][[User_Talk:SLionel|Say "hi!"]] 01:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-22T04:38:44Z

SLionel: /* Does it really exist */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Oh yes, but a) I don't use them and b) there is the same kind of limit on electron microscopes, I just don't want to go into the quantum explanations, don't miss the point ;) --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the tax collector make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Changed taxpayer to tax collector. ''Matthew 21:31 "Truly I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."'' It leads me to believe that many who shouldn't, are there out of His divine mercy. So 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 fall to the abyss.-[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
===Does it really exist===
I realize that my personal theology is rather liberal, but I have a hard time believing that an infinitely merciful god would have a special place reserved to torture those who don`t quite measure up. And I think the sentence to the damned deserved to be considered as well... it`s not just a flogging or anything of the like... its infinite amounts of pain for an infinite amount of time. I just doesn`t add up to me. Furthermore, this would require god to be vengeful, which would in turn require God to posses human emotions. A truly transcendent god wouldn`t have human emotions. I may just be following JP2`s views (God bless him!) when I say this, but I seriously doubt there is a literal hell. --[[User:SLionel|SLionel]] 00:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:So your a Universalist? And the punishment fits the crime perfectly: God is Infinite and Eternal, and your crime is Sin, or rebellion against God. What punishment will truly absolve you of such a crime besides eternal punishment? Yes, god is loving and all of that, but he IS just, and demands justice for crimes. Furthermore, do you have biblical proof to deny hell exists? Because theres plenty of proof in the bible it does.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::Yes, but there`s also biblical proof that Jesus and God are loving. What crime in your opinion is deserving of infinite punishment? I can`t think of one, myself. As for your first question, maybe, I don`t know what a universalist is :) .--[[User:SLionel|SLionel]][[User_Talk:SLionel|Say "hi!"]] 00:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-22T04:15:51Z

SLionel: put my edit in the wrong spot... I`m kinda tired

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Oh yes, but a) I don't use them and b) there is the same kind of limit on electron microscopes, I just don't want to go into the quantum explanations, don't miss the point ;) --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the tax collector make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Changed taxpayer to tax collector. ''Matthew 21:31 "Truly I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."'' It leads me to believe that many who shouldn't, are there out of His divine mercy. So 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 fall to the abyss.-[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
===Does it really exist===
I realize that my personal theology is rather liberal, but I have a hard time believing that an infinitely merciful god would have a special place reserved to torture those who don`t quite measure up. And I think the sentence to the damned deserved to be considered as well... it`s not just a flogging or anything of the like... its infinite amounts of pain for an infinite amount of time. I just doesn`t add up to me. Furthermore, this would require god to be vengeful, which would in turn require God to posses human emotions. A truly transcendent god wouldn`t have human emotions. I may just be following JP2`s views (God bless him!) when I say this, but I seriously doubt there is a literal hell. --[[User:SLionel|SLionel]] 00:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-22T04:14:00Z

SLionel: Hell?

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
===Does it really exist===
I realize that my personal theology is rather liberal, but I have a hard time believing that an infinitely merciful god would have a special place reserved to torture those who don`t quite measure up. And I think the sentence to the damned deserved to be considered as well... it`s not just a flogging or anything of the like... its infinite amounts of pain for an infinite amount of time. I just doesn`t add up to me. Furthermore, this would require god to be vengeful, which would in turn require God to posses human emotions. A truly transcendent god wouldn`t have human emotions. I may just be following JP2`s views (God bless him!) when I say this, but I seriously doubt there is a literal hell. --SLionel 00:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the tax collector make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Changed taxpayer to tax collector. ''Matthew 21:31 "Truly I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."'' It leads me to believe that many who shouldn't, are there out of His divine mercy. So 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 fall to the abyss.-[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

2011-09-05T20:07:30Z

SLionel: Dred Scott has nothing to do with Abortion or Roe v. Wade

[[Image:Dredscott_bw.jpg |right|thumb|"Portrait of Dred Scott painted by Louis Schultze and commissioned by "a group of Negro citizens" in 1882"]]

In 1846, a [[slave]] named [[Dred Scott]] and his [[wife]], Harriet, sued for their [[freedom]] in a [[St. Louis]] city court. The odds were in their favor: they had lived with their owner, an [[army]] [[surgeon]], at Fort Snelling, then in the free Territory of [[Wisconsin]]. However, what appeared to be a straightforward lawsuit between two private parties became an 11-year legal struggle that culminated in one of the most notorious decisions ever issued by the United States Supreme Court.

==Facts==
In the early 1830's, a slave named Dred Scott was sold by Peter Blow (or the executor of his estate; records are unclear) to Dr. John Emerson, who had recently obtained a commission as surgeon in the U. S. Army at Fort Armstrong, Illinois. Emerson took Scott with him as a slave. After three years (during which Emerson had repeatedly petitioned the War Department for a transfer), Emerson was transferred to Fort Snelling, located near the present site of [[St. Paul, Minnesota]]. While there, Scott married (with both owners' permission), Harriet Robinson, a slave of Major Taliaferro.

The next year, Emerson was transferred to Fort Jesup, in Louisiana. He left Scott and Harriet at Fort Snelling for a time; later they followed him downriver. Around this time, Emerson complained to the War Department, "One of my negros in Saint Louis... sued me for his freedom." However, no other records of this suit survive.

Emerson was later transferred back to Ft. Snelling, and Harriet gave birth to a baby en route, in the free territory of Iowa. After several other transfers, the War Department (tiring of his frequent petitions for transfer) discharged him from the army. He died soon afterward, leaving his slaves to his widow and naming John F. A. Sanford (his brother-in-law) as one of his executors.

Little is known about Scott himself, who died in 1858 shortly after his suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Despite rumors of his "shiftless"ness, Scott was described as "illiterate but not ignorant" and posessed of a "strong common sense."

==Original case==

Scott unsuccessfully tried to purchase his and his family's freedom from Mrs. Emerson shortly after her husband's death. When this offer was rejected, he (and his wife, whose suit parallelled his in all respects) sued for their freedom in the Missouri state court, saying that their master had brought them to free soil and they had lived their for extended periods. Frequently, courts in Missouri and other slave states had held that slaves who had lived in a free state with their master's consent (rather than having run away or just visited there for a time) had become free and remained free even after returning to a slave state. The first trial failed on a technicality (Scott's lawyer failed to prove that Mrs. Emerson truly claimed to be his owner), but a second trial resulted in Scott's being freed on these grounds. However, Mrs. Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

==The Case Grows==
On its way to the [[Supreme Court]], the Dred Scott [[case]] grew in scope and significance as [[slavery]] became the single most explosive issue in [[American]] politics. By the time the case reached the high court, it had come to have enormous political implications for the entire nation. The sectional controversy over slavery had grown to the point where the Northern and Southern wings of the [[Democratic Party]] could only agree on giving the territorial governments all Constitutional power over slavery - but they could not agree on what powers they could Constitutionally have, and only achieved a fragile truce by agreeing to leave the matter up to the Supreme Court.

Into this climate came the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court heard the first oral arguments in February 1856, but later called for a re-hearing in December. On March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of President [[James Buchanan]], the Court voted 7-2 against Scott (60 U.S. 393). While all nine justices wrote separate opinions, [[Chief Justice]] [[Roger B. Taney]] said in the officially-designated "opinion of the court" that:
* Scott was not a citizen, and therefore had no right to sue in Federal court.
* Blacks had no rights to be citizens, even in the North.
* Neither Congress nor a territorial government could ban slavery from a Federal territory, because it violated slaveholders' rights to [[due process of law]].

==Reaction==

The [[Republican Party]] quickly protested the decision, saying that most of Taney's opinion was [[obitur dicta]] and therefore void - after ruling that Scott had no right to sue, he should have ended his opinion there. [[Abraham Lincoln]] argued that the Dred Scott case was part of a pro-slavery conspiracy: the reasoning Taney had used to force slavery upon the territories would allow a future court to force slavery upon Northern states.<ref>[http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate1.htm Transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas Debate]</ref> Many Northern states also protested the decision by effectively nullifying parts of it within their state bounds.

Thus, the North began to feel threatened by the South. Similarly, the South began to conclude that no governmental action could assure them of their rights against Northern opposition. This decision moved the nation a step closer to Civil War.

Lincoln argued that, while the decision was valid for Scott himself, the government did not need to follow Taney's larger conclusions:
{{quotebox| ...if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. <ref>[http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address]</ref> }}
In accordance with this, the Republican-controlled Congress abolished slavery in all Federal territories without once mentioning the Dred Scott decision.

The main points of the decision were officially overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.

In the [[Insular Cases]] of 1901, which concerned the Constitution's application in Puerto Rico (recently seized in the [[Spanish-American War]]), Justice Henry Brown acknowledged that the Dred Scott decision
{{quotebox|is a strong authority in favor of the plaintiff, and if the opinion of the Chief Justice be taken at its full value it is decisive in his favor. We are not, however, bound to overlook the fact, that, before the Chief Justice gave utterance to his opinion upon the merits, he had already disposed of the case adversely to the plaintiff upon the question of jurisdiction, and that, in view of the excited political condition of the country at the time, it is unfortunate that he felt compelled to discuss the question upon the merits, particularly so in view of the fact that it involved a ruling that an act of Congress which had been acquiesced in for thirty years was declared unconstitutional. It would appear from the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne that the real reason for discussing these constitutional questions was that 'there had become such a difference of opinion' about them 'that the peace and harmony of the country required the settlement of them by judicial decision.' The attempt was not successful. It is sufficient to say that the country did not acquiesce in the opinion, and that the Civil War, which shortly thereafter followed, produced such changes in judicial, as well as public, sentiment as to seriously impair the authority of this case. <ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=182&invol=244 Downes v. Bidwell, full text of opinion]</ref>}}

The one point still cited with favor today is Taney's technical discussion of a plea in averment. Besides that, the Dred Scott case has become a byword for unjust decisions.

== References ==
*[http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/dred-scott-decision Abridged transcript of Chief Justice Taney's opinion]
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html Full text of all nine opinions]
*''The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics''. Don E. Fehrenbacher, 1978.
{{reflist}}
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]][[category:Civil Rights]]

User talk:SLionel

2011-09-05T20:04:14Z

SLionel: /* Admin warning */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you, sir!--[[User:SLionel|SLionel]] 00:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quality ==

Both new articles and additions to existing articles need to pay attention to quality and our article standards. Looking through the style manual linked above should be useful. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Alright, I`ll work on it. I know what I posted is true, I just need to find the citations. Most of that is stuff I learned in class, so its kinda hard to cite that. :p
--SLionel 15:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Admin warning==

Please avoid distractions, especially those falsely labelled 'not to distract'. No one has to answer sniping questions from non-contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:55, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think I raised a valid point, and I can`t help but think of you removing my post as censorship. I was not trying to irritate anyone with it. It`s the internet. If I really wanted to irritate people, I`d just be a troll.
:Would it be okay if I posted "To bring it back on subject, Conservative, you haven`t given Orsay a yes or no." ? --SLionel 16:04, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

World History Signups

2011-08-31T01:08:54Z

SLionel:

You can sign up for the fall course in World History here, by editing this file and clicking the signature button (10th one from the left above) next to one of the entries below:

*[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT) (instructor)
* [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:22, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:14, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:TimothyFlowers|TimothyFlowers]] 13:09, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 17:41, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:53, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:JonnS|JonnS]] 18:21, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
*[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 20:52, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
*--SLionel 21:08, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
*41 students have enrolled from [[New Jersey]] as of Aug. 17, 2011

'''Total enrollment''': 45
Work on the [[World History Study Guide to 1648‎]], and improvements to it are welcome; the class itself begins September 1, 2011.

== See also ==

*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/ex_history.html CLEP materials]
[[Category:Homeschool Curriculum]]

User talk:Jimmyray

2011-08-03T03:46:28Z

SLionel: Created page with "Hello there. I was wandering the site and noticed that you`re majoring in eastern religions. I was wondering if you could help me expand the Buddhism article?--~~~~"

Hello there. I was wandering the site and noticed that you`re majoring in eastern religions. I was wondering if you could help me expand the Buddhism article?--SLionel 23:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

User:SLionel

2011-08-03T03:17:43Z

SLionel:

{{useful links}}

I am a runner, a student, and a Catholic. Recently I have taken interest in eastern religions.

I generally believe in the ninth amendment.

User talk:SLionel

2011-08-01T19:36:28Z

SLionel: /* Quality */

User talk:SLionel

2011-08-01T19:36:16Z

SLionel: /* Quality */

Emil Zatopek

2011-08-01T06:21:21Z

SLionel: Created page with "Emil Zatopek is arguably the single greatest runner of all time. A Czech, he ran in his first race when working in a shoe factory; of a field of 100, he got second place. This ra..."

Emil Zatopek is arguably the single greatest runner of all time. A Czech, he ran in his first race when working in a shoe factory; of a field of 100, he got second place. This race ignited his love of running which eventually led to the olympics and no less than four gold medals. No doubt Zatopek`s greatest acheivement occured in the marathon. The first time the famed Czech had ever run the race he not only won, but set a world record. All this occured in the olympics and in heat that had caused the current world record holder to drop out of the race.

Indie rock

2011-08-01T06:13:35Z

SLionel:

'''Indie rock''' is [[rock music]] made by independent bands or [[people]] not involved with the mainstream record industry. Though the genre was once a descriptor of a band`s label status, it is beginning to define the type of music that a band plays. Two particularly influential and popular indie bands are Modest Mouse and Death Cab for Cutie, these bands, however, have gone from truely independent to being on major labels. Many indie bands, such as Bright Eyes and Rilo Kiley, write and perform songs that are strongly critical of the United States and George W. Bush. Bright Eye's "When the President Talks to God" offers a misguided list of blames that range from drugs to inner city poverty and places the blame on George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

[[category:musical Genres]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-08-01T05:24:52Z

SLionel: The barn and the ladder problem does indeed make sense, though I think it is more easily explained using a meter stick and a meter-long tube. But I digress.

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 35 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> Sound like [[global warming]]?
#The eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

User talk:GordonF

2011-07-28T05:41:44Z

SLionel:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)}}

==Warning==
You will be blocked for violation of our 90/10 rule if this continues. Please start contributing in the mainspace. --[[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

==The Freeman lives==

User talk:SLionel

2011-07-28T04:32:24Z

SLionel:

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you, sir!--[[User:SLionel|SLionel]] 00:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

User:SLionel

2011-07-28T03:20:19Z

SLionel:

{{useful links}}

I am a runner, a student, and a Catholic. Recently I have taken interest in eastern religions.

Talk:Cross Country

2011-07-28T02:53:36Z

SLionel:

== Suggestions for 'Famous Athletes?' ==

Besides the obvious additions, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to integrate religion into this article. I know, off the top of my head, that Hall, Salazaar, Ritzenhein, and I believe Rupp are Christian. I know that Hall`s faith is very important to him.

Talk:Cross Country

2011-07-28T02:53:10Z

SLionel: Created page with " == Suggestions for 'Famous Atlhetes?' == Besides the obvious additions, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to integrate religion into this article. I know, off the ..."

== Suggestions for 'Famous Atlhetes?' ==

Besides the obvious additions, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to integrate religion into this article. I know, off the top of my head, that Hall, Salazaar, Ritzenhein, and I believe Rupp are Christian. I know that Hall`s faith is very important to him.

Cross Country

2011-07-28T02:50:51Z

SLionel:

'''Cross Country''' is a sport that involves multiple participants in a long-distance race.

The distance, depending on the circumstances-- middle school, high school, college, or professional race-- is anywhere between 3 kilometers and 12 kilometers. The courses may consist of varying terrain, from flat and on pavement and grass, to extremely hilly and on trails.

'''Famous Cross Country Runners'''

Steve Prefontaine

Alberto Salazaar

Galen Rupp

Dathen Ritzenhein

Ryan Hall

Alan Webb

Buddhism

2011-07-28T02:09:27Z

SLionel:

'''Buddhism''' is a religious system whose followers seek liberation from suffering through adherence to the teachings of the Buddha [[Siddhartha Gautama]]. To Buddhists, sentient beings are trapped in an eternal cycle of death and rebirth (samsara), characterized by continual dissatisfaction or suffering (dukkha). Buddhism provides a practical set of teachings (the dharma) designed to help sentient beings achieve a state of freedom from dukkha. Buddhism teaches that individuals reincarnate involuntarily and repeatedly in the world of samsara, a cyclic process which ends for an individual when they attain Nirvana (Theravada) or Enlightenment (Mahayana), either in a human body or immediately upon death in their last involuntary cycle of samsara. Mahayana Buddhism holds, in addition, that the goal of Enlightenment is not merely release from one's own personal suffering in samsara, but also the release of all sentient beings, toward which an enlightened being or Buddha is, by nature, committed to work through compassionate action. To this end, a Buddha may voluntarily reincarnate to help release all sentient beings from samsara.

[[Image:Nara.jpg|thumb|200px|Great Buddha at [[Nara]]]]

==Founder==
Buddhism was founded by an [[India|Indian]] prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who, after being sheltered from coming into contact with suffering due to disease, poverty and death until adulthood, finally observed the suffering of his people during his first walk outside the palace grounds. After that he worked to discover the reason for suffering and pain. He studied a number of the disciplines of the day, seeking ultimate truth. After finding other approaches to understanding lacking, he went into meditation for 49 days, vowing not to move until he had attained enlightenment. After great personal struggle he achieved enlightenment, and began to teach the principles that are now associated with Buddhism.

The philosophy has its roots in [[Hinduism]] and Vedic religion, to which Gautama belonged until the foundation of Buddhism.

==View of God==
[[Image:Mandala of Prajnaparamit.jpg|thumb|Mandala of Prajnaparamit, [[Tibet]].]]
Some Buddhist scriptures and some sects, like the Mahayana school, acknowledge that gods exist,<ref>[http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html Buddhism]</ref><ref>[http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html Do Buddhists Believe in God?]</ref> but do not consider that knowledge crucial to an individual's practice of Buddhist teachings since as incarnated beings, they too are bound to the wheel of Samsara and thus it is pointless to submit to them. The Buddha taught that we should not speculate about what we cannot know, and that speculation about [[God]] is pointless. Buddhists' priorities are release from suffering (by learning to cease striving after objects of desire and avoiding objects of discomfort) and direct experience of the true nature of reality. Many modern strains of Buddhism are [[atheist|atheistic]] in nature, thus creating a paradox as to why they are called a religion. They can be considered to be philosophies of life. Certain denominations, such as the Mahayana tradition, believe in [[Bodhisattvas]], or quasi-divine cosmic beings that seek to benefit others by remaining in a state of [[Samsara]], or eternal rebirth. These are prayed to, for advice and spiritual guidance, and often venerated.

{{Clear}}

==Teachings==
The highest ideal for a Buddhist is the state of Nirvana, or release from eternal rebirth, a state beyond conceptual thought. This descibes a state that is achieved through meditation and practice that is beyond the categories and conditioning that are a result of our education, experiences and the limitations of language. This state has been described by the Buddha as follows:
<blockquote>''"There is O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. ~ Udana, 80-81"''</blockquote>

Adherents claim that Buddhism is a very practical [[philosophy]], which teaches us to focus our attention on personal experience, to determine what is the cause of our discontents ("dukkha") and to find a way to liberate ourselves from these, all the while expressing "metta", which is universal, unconditional love, and "karuna", which roughly translates to "compassion", towards others. These teachings are encapsulated in the [[Four Noble Truths]].<ref>[http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/four_noble_truths.htm Four Noble Truths]</ref>

Buddhism is commonly held to be a relatively peaceful religion, due to its less "absolutist" view of morality and the fluid nature of thought that encouraged not just acceptance of other faiths and ideas, but also examination of those ideas and, if necessary, applying them to one's life. This also allows people to follow Buddhism as a philosophy, and Islam, Judaism or Christianity as a faith, without contradicting any principles of either following.<ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref>

It should be noted that the ideals of tolerance and introspection among the Buddhist faithful were often ignored by the leaders of Buddhist nations (much like the leaders of most other nations often disobeyed their own religions' fundamental laws in the interest of what was practical) <ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref> and persecution of Christians in predominantly Buddhist nations does occur today.<ref>http://www.persecution.org/whitepapers/vietnam-2002-03.html</ref><ref>http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/new-evidence-of-religious-persecution-in-vietnam-despite-release-prisoner/</ref><ref>http://persecution.org/Countries/laos.html</ref> It is important to note here that the beliefs of the populace and those of the leadership do not necessarily always coincide (ref. Israel under Roman control). It is important to note that only around 55% of Vietnam is Buddhist (see below), and that Buddhist monks took an active role in protesting the corrupt Diem regime and the Vietnam War.

Many of Buddhism's tenets might be considered to promote a 'liberal' lifestyle: vegetarianism, absolute pacifism, tolerance, lack of condemnation of homosexuality, agnosticism, etc. In particular, altered forms of Buddhism have been used in the atheistic American [[New Age]] movement. [[Liberals]], in keeping with [[relativism]], have been known to pick and choose which aspects of Buddhism to follow, while openly breaking other Buddhist teachings, like those forbidding drug use and sexual promiscuity.

==The Eightfold Path==
The [[Noble Eightfold Path]] is a teaching in Buddhism used to enlighten the individual, helping them to see the ultimate truth behind things like greed, suffering, and hatred.
:* Right View - Is the way of looking at the world as it really is, to understand how it really works.
:* Right Intention - The purging of qualities the person knows to be wrong or immoral from themselves. Right View helps to identify which intentions are good and which are not. Exemplified by a commitment to nonviolence against other living beings.
:* Right Speech - Instructs the practitioner of Buddhism in how to speak to others. Emphasizes telling the truth, avoiding gossip and idle chatter, and speaking in a polite, pacifying manner. This path also scorns against hateful, divisive speech.
:* Right Action - This path instructs the practitioner in how to act in a morally upright manner, abstaining from violence, stealing, taking a life, and sexual misconduct.
:* Right Livelihood - This instructs the practitioner to not engage in trades which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm to another living thing. These include Arms dealing, Human trade, working with animals raised to be slaughtered, or selling alcohol or drugs.
:* Right effort - This is the teaching of ridding oneself of all harmful thought, words, and deeds, and prevent new ones from emerging.
:* Right Mindfulness - This teaches the practitioner to be focused on their own mind and aware or changes and phenomena affecting them, never to act or speak in error due to inattention or forgetfulness.
:* Right Concentration - This path teaches the practitioner how to meditate, calming the body and mind through measured breathing and repetition of a word or phrase. Using this practice allows the person to focus on what they have learned, and through dwelling on those teachings, gain knowledge of the world around them.

==Buddhism in Antiquity==
Buddhism has been an important part of the culture in many eastern countries, such as [[Cambodia]], [[Thailand]], and [[India]]. It has endured active persecution when conflicting with older beliefs such as [[Hinduism]], and led in many countries to the rise of Buddhist warrior-dissidents, as well as such interesting anomalies as ''shinshi'' (transliterated from the Khmer), a form of torture wherein strips of flesh are removed slowly from the forehead. <ref>Schlesinger, Robert. ''Schlesinger's History of the East'', 2nd ed. New York: Camport & Sons, 1986.</ref>

==Branches of Buddhism==
Like many other religions of the world, Buddhism has developed into numerous branches and variation on the themes taught by the Buddha. While it would be impossible to give a truly succinct description of every permutation, the schools of thought encompassing Buddhism are generally broken into three major divisions, discussed briefly below.

'''Theravada'''

Therevaden Buddhism, sometimes derisively known as Hinyama (lesser vehicle) by some Mahayana Buddhist practitioners, is what can be described as the earliest advent of Buddhism and the closest to the original philosophy founded by the Buddha and is regarded by practitioners as the more conservative of the three divisions.

Central to the Theravadan school of thought is the notion of Vibhajjavada<ref>http://palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vibhajja_vaada.htm</ref> or Teaching of Analysis. This notion holds that true insight for a student comes from a combination of critical reasoning and non-reliance on blind faith, though the teachings and writings of one's elders should be considered.

Furthermore, Theravada teaches that enlightenment is not attainable in a single lifetime, nor should it be thought to be. Instead, one must break free of their worldly fetters (hatred, lust, shame) before being reborn and continuing on the path to eventual enlightenment.

Theravadan Buddhism's main text can be considered the Pali Cannon, though a wealth of scripture, sutras and treatises have arisen and shall continue to be written as the philosophy continues to diversify.

'''Mahayana'''

Mahayana Buddhism, literally "Great Vehicle," is one of the other main branches of Buddhism. Whereas Theravada Buddhism focuses on induvidual enlightenment, Mahayana is Buddhism for the masses. Indeed, it is often called Buddhism for the masses. Furthermore, Mahayana holds bodhivisattvas in esteem. To put an analogy to it, bodhivisattvas are similar to saints, preachers, or even teachers in Christianity. Bodhivisattvas are enlightened ones who choose to remain in the cycle of samsara for the hope of helping others towards enlightenment. Gautama is perhaps the most famous of these bodhivisattvas.

==Buddhism Today==
[[Image:China B.jpg|right]]
Buddhism is currently the majority religion in the following states:

{| class="wikitable sortable" align="left"
|-
|'''Country'''
|'''Percent'''
|-
|Thailand
|95%
|-
|Cambodia
|90
|-
|Myanmar
|88
|-
|Bhutan
|75
|-
|Sri Lanka
|70
|-
|Tibet*
|65
|-
|Laos
|60
|-
|Vietnam
|55
|-
|Japan**
|50

|}
 
<nowiki>*</nowiki> [[China]]: Is the country with the most Buddhists, with an estimated 100 million adherents.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Tibet is an estimate, as there has never been a reliable survey. Furthermore, it is debatable whether Tibet should be considered an independent nation.

<nowiki>**</nowiki> [[Japan]] is an "odd" case, as surveys of adherence are conducted rather differently. Firstly it is debatable at what point various Japanese beliefs shift from being traditions to being religions. This is indicated by the fact that "85% of Japanese claim Buddhism as their preferred religion", yet "75% percent claim to practice and believe in no religion" -a more accurate estimate may be 20%.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_buddhist.html The Largest Buddhist Communities]</ref>

[[Image:Obon.jpg|thumb|Obon remains one of the most important Buddhist observances]]

<blockquote>
The Obon Festival is one of Japan’s oldest Buddhist celebrations; it marks the time that it’s believed the spirits of dead ancestors return to the Earth. The gathering included the Bon Odori dance, which remembers Japanese ancestors by imitating motions of picking cherries and mining coal. [http://www.culturesdiary.com/]
</blockquote>
{{Clear}}

==References==
<References/>

== See also ==
*[[Kamakura]]
*[[Nara]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

== External links ==
*[http://wri.leaderu.com/wri-table2/buddhism.html#intro Buddhism]
*[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism]
*[http://www.kalachakranet.org/buddhism/history_japanese_buddhism.htm History of Japanese Buddhism]

== Further reading ==
[[File:Buddhism1.jpg|thumb|200px]]
* Chodron, Thubten. ''Buddhism for Beginners'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Beginners-Thubten-Chodron/dp/1559391537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262317083&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Harding, John S. et al, eds. ''Wild Geese: Buddhism in Canada'' (2010)
* Landaw, Jonathan, and Stephan Bodian. ''Buddhism For Dummies'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Dummies-Religion-Spirituality/dp/0764553593/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262317083&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Rahula, Walpola. ''What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada''. Grove, 1994.
* Rapaport, Al, and Brian Hotchkiss. ''Buddhism in America'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-America-Al-Rapaport/dp/0804831521/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262316921&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Seager, Richard Hughes. ''Buddhism in America'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-America-Richard-Hughes-Seager/dp/0231108699/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262316921&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

[[Category:Buddhism]]
[[Category:Dharmic Religions]]
[[Category:Religion]]