Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sodom

2014-11-11T03:14:44Z

Tollerson: /* Sodom and homosexuality */

[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Destruction of Sodom by God]]

'''Sodom''' was one of five ancient [[Canaanite]] (Gn. 10:19) "cities of the Plain", (Gn. 13:10) , along with its sister city of iniquity, [[Gommorah]], and Admah, Zeboim and Lasha. The Bible records that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because, among other sins, they, "and the cities about them in like manner, [were] giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh", and thus "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7 [[KJV]]) Biblical texts confirm that "the cities about them" would be or would include Admah, and Zeboim. (Dt. 29:23; Hos. 11:8) Their destruction was by means of brimstone (thought by some to be hot [[lava]]) and fire from heaven, but which was preceded by the confirmation of the wickedness of Sodom by angels of God (appearing as men), and deliverance of righteous Lot and those of his family who went with him. Lot's wife however, disobeyed the command of the angels not to look back, and was turned into a pillar of salt. This region later became part of the the Holy Land of Israel.

==Dr. Bryant Wood's Archaeological Investigation in Relation to Sodom==

[[Image:sodom1.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Location of the Ancient City of Sodom near the Dead Sea.]]

The following is reported by Probe Ministries in regards to archaeological work relating to the biblical city of Sodom:
{{cquote|Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. [[Bryant Wood]], in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."<ref>[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227395/k.3D9E/Archaeology_and_the_Old_Testament.htm Archaeology and the Old Testament by Patrick Zukeran]</ref>}}

Dr. Wood provides some additional material in relation to archaeological evidence for the biblical city of Sodom.<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0903.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Part 1 of 2]</ref><ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1003.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—Part 2]</ref>

==The story of Sodom==

Sodom was on the Canaanite border (Genesis 10:19), and is recorded as being part of a fertile, prosperous region, (Genesis 13:10) which would be highly desirably in an agrarian based economy. However, the people of Sodom were "wicked and sinners" before God (Genesis 13:13). The King of Sodom was Bera (Genesis 14:2), and when Bera went to war with Chedorlaomer, Lot was captured. In response, [[Abraham]], then called Abram, using his own trained servants, rescued Lot as well as Bera and his men. This was the first recorded example of a [[just war]] in the Bible. However, Abraham would not accept any reward for this. (Genesis 14)

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 contain the most detail about Sodom. At the beginning of Genesis 18, three men visit Abraham and Sarah, and Abraham bows before them, and hastens to treat them as honored guests, feeding under a tree and making them comfortable. They ask where Sarah is, and Abraham and Sarah are promised a child with the year. At this point it is revealed that one of the three men is the LORD, while later it is revealed that the other two men are angels. These two men then set their face toward Sodom, and as Abraham brings them on their way, the LORD reveals to him the purpose of their mission.

:"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18: 19, 20)

It is thus seen that the very grievous wickedness of Sodom was already well established, well before the angels had not yet set foot in the city, but which would be confirmed by their reaction to the angelic men. This method is seen as being part of the formal process of judgment by God, in which the reaction to messengers of God confirms their worthiness of wrath. (Mt. 11:20) A different reaction was manifested by the people of Nineveh to the preaching of [[Jonah (prophet)|Jonah]] the prophet of God.

Abraham knows that his (decidedly weaker in faith) nephew Lot was in Sodom, and Abraham reverently inquires of God if he would spare the city if 50, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even 10 righteous people were found in it, with God affirming he would not destroy it after each request, for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. The two angels of God proceed to Sodom and are met by Abraham's righteous nephew Lot, who constrains the angels to lodge with him, and they eat with his family.

[[Image:A02j LotAndDaughters.jpg|thumbnail|left|150px|[[Lot]] and his daughters fleeing Sodom.]]

However, similar to the parallel story in Judges 19,

:"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:4, 5)

In response, Lot pleads with his countrymen,

:"I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:7,8)

However, this offer is refused, and instead the crowd threatens to do worse to Lot then they would have done to his guests, and press sore upon him, almost breaking the door. In response, Lot's angelic guests pull him inside, shut the door, and strike the men with blindness, no doubt revealing to the Sodomites that Lot's guests were no ordinary men. Lot is then commanded by the angels to gather his family and leave, revealing that the Lord will destroy the region. However, Lot's sons in law do not believe him, and while Lot himself lingers, the angels take him and his wife and their two daughters by the hand, "the LORD being merciful unto him", and set them outside the city. The angels also command Lot and his family not to look back under any circumstances. However, as Sodom and Gomorrah were being destroyed by fire and brimstone from God, Lot's wife looks back at the city, and becomes a pillar of salt.

===The example of Sodom===

Sodom is often used in the Bible as an example of a people given to iniquity, and the climatic utter destruction of Sodom is invoked as an example of the wrath of God against ongoing impenitence and sin. However, it is also seen as a story of the salvation of God, by His deliverance of God-fearing Lot, while Jesus referred to Lot's wife in warning not to look back to that which God has called the redeemed to leave behind. (Lk. 17:31,32)<ref>Matthew Henry, Gen 19:26</ref>

Genesis 19:24-25 records,

:"...the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:24-25;&version=49; Genesis 19:24-25]

2Peter 2:6-7 (KJV} also references both Sodom and Lot,

:"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked".

{{bibleverse||Jude|1:7|KJV}}, affirms that both Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them were "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

{{bibleverse||Isaiah|3:9|KJV}}, associates Sodom with shameless sinning.

{{bibleverse||Jeremiah|23:14|KJV}} associates Sodom and Gomorrah with adultery and lies.

In Ezekiel 16:48-50 (KJV}, God compares [[Jerusalem]] to Sodom, saying "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. (49) Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (50) And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

{{bibleverse||Mark|6:11-12|KJV}}(cf. Mt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:1-12), Jesus declares certain cities more damnable than Sodom and Gomorrah, due to their response to Jesus' disciples, in the light of greater grace.

{{bibleverse||Luke|17:28-29|KJV}}, uses Sodom as an example of indifference; careless living.

==== Additional biblical References to Sodom and Gomorrah ====
* (Eze. 16:49)
* (Gen. 13:13)
* (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* (Deut. 32:32,33)
* (Isa. 3:9)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (Psa. 5:5)
* (Jn. 8:44)
* (2 Pet. 2:7,8)
* (2 Pet. 2:12)
* (2 Pet. 2:22)
* (Lk. 17:28-30)
* (Rom. 1:23-28)
* (Jude 7)
* (Jude 23)
* (Rev. 22:15)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (I Timothy 4:2-4)

==Sodom and homosexuality==
''See also: [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation#Genesis 19|Genesis 19]]''

Classical Jewish commentary consistently condemns homosexuality, yet comments on Sodom, though not abundant, most usually mention traditions which tell of the cruelty of Sodom to strangers, but not its manifestation in homosexual rape. Reasons for this include the references to lack of charity and injustice elsewhere in the Bible, such as Ezekiel, and also because the angels were in Sodom ''because'' God had already decided to destroy it (Gen. 19:13) and so the attempted homosexual rape was "just" further evidence of the total depravity of the city. However, Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom,

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).

In summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus also stated:

“About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96).

Other statements from the [[Pseudepigrapha]] are seen to testify likewise.

Traditionally, most Christian scholars and commentators have seen homoeroticism as evidencing the extreme moral degradation of Sodom, and ultimately being causative of its judgment, with the destruction of Sodom being an eternal statement on God's view of [[homosexual]] relations.

Concerning Jude 1:7, the noted but normally tempered commentator, Matthew Henry solemnly warns,

...they were guilty of abominable wickedness, not to be named or thought of but with the utmost abhorrence and detestation; their ruin is a particular warning to all people to take heed of, and fly fRom. fleshly lusts that war against the soul, 1Pe_2:11. “These lusts consumed the Sodomites with fire from heaven, and they are now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; therefore take heed, imitate not their sins, lest the same plagues overtake you as did them. God is the same holy, just, pure Being now as then; and can the beastly pleasures of a moment make amends for your suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? Stand in awe, therefore, and sin not,” Psa_4:4.

Likewise John Gill comments,

...and going after strange flesh; or "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do,...

Also, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown:

...going after strange flesh — departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural. In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame.

Archibald Thomas Robertson adds,

Strange flesh (sarkos heteras). Horrible licentiousness, not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Rom_1:27) for which the very word “sodomy” is used (Gen_19:4-11).

In contrast, pro homosexual apologists most typically contend that the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19 was non-sexual inhospitality,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition', p. 8; McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Boswell, Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, pp 93-94</ref> and which polemic primarily focuses upon the Hebrew word for ''know'' in Gn. 19:5 (and synginomai the Greek [[Septuagint]]) and the attribution of non-sexual sins in Ezekiel 16:49 and Matthew 11:20-24. Traditionalists counter that sound [[Bible exegesis]] best evidences that Lot's countrymen (the Sodomites) sought sex.<ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 Gregory Koukl, What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?]</ref><ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480 Dave Miller, Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?]</ref> This is based upon the use of "know in Gn. 19:8 and its 14 other occurrences in the O.T.(and synginomai in Gn. 39:10 and in the Apocrypha and other literature) for sex, as well as the parallel story of Judges 19, and the specific attribution of sexual sins to Sodom and its region in Jude 1:7, concluding in a perverse manner of such.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=early+christian+writings+on+homosexuality&source=bl&ots=ZjVFV3k7Fe&sig=75PdqP0qrE9AeeJxBSlcfhG0hdE&hl=en&ei=ljkbSu7xF4S0MJCchY8P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19#PPA36,M1 Homosexuality, by James B. DeYoung, pp. 32-39, 118-122]</ref>

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah (False religion)===

Rulers in Israel are addressed as heads of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isaiah and Jeremiah due their false worship, and the injustices and other aspects of immorality whichg resulted from it. (cf. Romans 1:16-32)

:''Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.'' (Isaiah 1:10,11)

False worship is also associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Jeremiah,

:''And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.'' (Jeremiah 23:13, 14)

The prophets of Jerusalem reprove Israel for its widespread adultery, lying, and strengthening the hand of evildoers. This reference to supporting evildoers and remaining impenitent is seen as a most important Old Testament reference to Sodom, outside of Genesis.

===Sodom in Ezekiel (Idleness, or affluence without charity)===

Ezekiel 16:49, 50 similarly explain that the sins of Sodom were pride, materialism, haughtiness, and neglect of the poor and needy, and which the story of Lot exemplified.

However, such a condition is usually concomitant with sexual sin, and is implicated in the fall of the [[Roman Empire]].<ref>(historian D. Earl), referenced by Young, Homosexuality, p. 153</ref> Ezekiel goes to state that the Sodomites committed abomination, with the Hebrew word used here being tow'ebah. In the Old Testament this word is normally used in connection with idol worship, such as in Deuteronomy 7:26, as well as other moral sins, including those of a sexual nature. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 16:2258; 22:11; 33:26)

===Sodom in the Gospels===

In the gospels, Jesus sends His disciples out on a mission to preach his word, and to heal the sick, and cast out demons, [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:11-15;&version=49; Matthew 10:5-15] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:5-12;&version=49; Luke 10:1-12] and further instructs them,

:''In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. (Mk. 6:10-12)

This is understood by some as evidencing that the cause of Sodom's judgment was inhospitality.<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50; Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97</ref> Countering this it is pointed out that the reason Jesus codemned those cities was "because they repented not." (Mt. 11:20), which, as in the inhospitably of Sodom, was the roor cause of their rejection of the disciples of the Lord.<ref>[http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Homosexual_relations_and_the_Bible#Ezekiel_16:49_and_inhospitality_texts Homosexual relations and the Bible]</ref>

===Sodom in Jude===

The most explicit reference to Sodom in the New Testament is found in the short book of Jude, in which one aspect has seen some varied interpretations.

:''I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'' - Jude 5 -7 {KJV)

This section is part of a discourse warning of [[apostasy]], in which contemporary examples of those who are acting in rebellion to truth are likened to past examples, from Israelites who were faithless and disobedient to God, to angels who left their ordained position in rebellion against God, to Sodom and Gomorrah and like cities, who likewise acted in rebellion to God's order. While Sodom did not have the light the previous parties were given, as they were pagan Canaanites, pagan rebellion is detailed in [[Roman 1]], in which many iniquities are named as the result of rejection of truth which God has given by way of creation.

The part of verse 7 which commentators have found intriguing is "going after strange flesh". Pro homosexual writers seek to disallow its meaning as referring to homosexual relations, pointing out that the word for "strange" usually means ''another'' or ''other'', and contend that if it was sexual, then it referred attempted sex with angels. However, countering this is the traditionalist argument which points out that the wickedness of Sodom was regional, and that no distinction is indicated that only Sodom was going after strange flesh. Genesis 18 reveals that the angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. It is also understood that it would be unlikely that the Sodomites (or even Lot: Heb. 13:2) knew Lot's visitors men were angels. In addition, it is seen that the word for strange can easily mean that is which is unlawful or perverse, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible, Jude 1:7]</ref> Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref> Gagnon provides six indications why "giving themselves over to fornication" alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> After examining evidence for both positions, Thomas E. Schmidt states, "The first Christians undoubtedly connected the sin of Sodom to the sin of same-sex relations and used the name of city as a symbol for extreme sexual wrongdoing, including but not limited to same-sex relations.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow?+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA97,M1 Straight & narrow? by Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref>

==Other References==

<References/>

[[category:Biblical Places]]

==External Links==
*[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible]

Sodom

2014-11-11T02:50:38Z

Tollerson: /* Sodom and homosexuality */

[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Destruction of Sodom by God]]

'''Sodom''' was one of five ancient [[Canaanite]] (Gn. 10:19) "cities of the Plain", (Gn. 13:10) , along with its sister city of iniquity, [[Gommorah]], and Admah, Zeboim and Lasha. The Bible records that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because, among other sins, they, "and the cities about them in like manner, [were] giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh", and thus "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7 [[KJV]]) Biblical texts confirm that "the cities about them" would be or would include Admah, and Zeboim. (Dt. 29:23; Hos. 11:8) Their destruction was by means of brimstone (thought by some to be hot [[lava]]) and fire from heaven, but which was preceded by the confirmation of the wickedness of Sodom by angels of God (appearing as men), and deliverance of righteous Lot and those of his family who went with him. Lot's wife however, disobeyed the command of the angels not to look back, and was turned into a pillar of salt. This region later became part of the the Holy Land of Israel.

==Dr. Bryant Wood's Archaeological Investigation in Relation to Sodom==

[[Image:sodom1.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Location of the Ancient City of Sodom near the Dead Sea.]]

The following is reported by Probe Ministries in regards to archaeological work relating to the biblical city of Sodom:
{{cquote|Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. [[Bryant Wood]], in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."<ref>[http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227395/k.3D9E/Archaeology_and_the_Old_Testament.htm Archaeology and the Old Testament by Patrick Zukeran]</ref>}}

Dr. Wood provides some additional material in relation to archaeological evidence for the biblical city of Sodom.<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0903.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Part 1 of 2]</ref><ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1003.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—Part 2]</ref>

==The story of Sodom==

Sodom was on the Canaanite border (Genesis 10:19), and is recorded as being part of a fertile, prosperous region, (Genesis 13:10) which would be highly desirably in an agrarian based economy. However, the people of Sodom were "wicked and sinners" before God (Genesis 13:13). The King of Sodom was Bera (Genesis 14:2), and when Bera went to war with Chedorlaomer, Lot was captured. In response, [[Abraham]], then called Abram, using his own trained servants, rescued Lot as well as Bera and his men. This was the first recorded example of a [[just war]] in the Bible. However, Abraham would not accept any reward for this. (Genesis 14)

Genesis chapters 18 and 19 contain the most detail about Sodom. At the beginning of Genesis 18, three men visit Abraham and Sarah, and Abraham bows before them, and hastens to treat them as honored guests, feeding under a tree and making them comfortable. They ask where Sarah is, and Abraham and Sarah are promised a child with the year. At this point it is revealed that one of the three men is the LORD, while later it is revealed that the other two men are angels. These two men then set their face toward Sodom, and as Abraham brings them on their way, the LORD reveals to him the purpose of their mission.

:"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18: 19, 20)

It is thus seen that the very grievous wickedness of Sodom was already well established, well before the angels had not yet set foot in the city, but which would be confirmed by their reaction to the angelic men. This method is seen as being part of the formal process of judgment by God, in which the reaction to messengers of God confirms their worthiness of wrath. (Mt. 11:20) A different reaction was manifested by the people of Nineveh to the preaching of [[Jonah (prophet)|Jonah]] the prophet of God.

Abraham knows that his (decidedly weaker in faith) nephew Lot was in Sodom, and Abraham reverently inquires of God if he would spare the city if 50, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even 10 righteous people were found in it, with God affirming he would not destroy it after each request, for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling therein. The two angels of God proceed to Sodom and are met by Abraham's righteous nephew Lot, who constrains the angels to lodge with him, and they eat with his family.

[[Image:A02j LotAndDaughters.jpg|thumbnail|left|150px|[[Lot]] and his daughters fleeing Sodom.]]

However, similar to the parallel story in Judges 19,

:"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:4, 5)

In response, Lot pleads with his countrymen,

:"I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:7,8)

However, this offer is refused, and instead the crowd threatens to do worse to Lot then they would have done to his guests, and press sore upon him, almost breaking the door. In response, Lot's angelic guests pull him inside, shut the door, and strike the men with blindness, no doubt revealing to the Sodomites that Lot's guests were no ordinary men. Lot is then commanded by the angels to gather his family and leave, revealing that the Lord will destroy the region. However, Lot's sons in law do not believe him, and while Lot himself lingers, the angels take him and his wife and their two daughters by the hand, "the LORD being merciful unto him", and set them outside the city. The angels also command Lot and his family not to look back under any circumstances. However, as Sodom and Gomorrah were being destroyed by fire and brimstone from God, Lot's wife looks back at the city, and becomes a pillar of salt.

===The example of Sodom===

Sodom is often used in the Bible as an example of a people given to iniquity, and the climatic utter destruction of Sodom is invoked as an example of the wrath of God against ongoing impenitence and sin. However, it is also seen as a story of the salvation of God, by His deliverance of God-fearing Lot, while Jesus referred to Lot's wife in warning not to look back to that which God has called the redeemed to leave behind. (Lk. 17:31,32)<ref>Matthew Henry, Gen 19:26</ref>

Genesis 19:24-25 records,

:"...the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:24-25;&version=49; Genesis 19:24-25]

2Peter 2:6-7 (KJV} also references both Sodom and Lot,

:"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked".

{{bibleverse||Jude|1:7|KJV}}, affirms that both Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them were "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

{{bibleverse||Isaiah|3:9|KJV}}, associates Sodom with shameless sinning.

{{bibleverse||Jeremiah|23:14|KJV}} associates Sodom and Gomorrah with adultery and lies.

In Ezekiel 16:48-50 (KJV}, God compares [[Jerusalem]] to Sodom, saying "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. (49) Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (50) And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

{{bibleverse||Mark|6:11-12|KJV}}(cf. Mt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:1-12), Jesus declares certain cities more damnable than Sodom and Gomorrah, due to their response to Jesus' disciples, in the light of greater grace.

{{bibleverse||Luke|17:28-29|KJV}}, uses Sodom as an example of indifference; careless living.

==== Additional biblical References to Sodom and Gomorrah ====
* (Eze. 16:49)
* (Gen. 13:13)
* (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19)
* (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32)
* (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2)
* (Deut. 32:32,33)
* (Isa. 3:9)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (Psa. 5:5)
* (Jn. 8:44)
* (2 Pet. 2:7,8)
* (2 Pet. 2:12)
* (2 Pet. 2:22)
* (Lk. 17:28-30)
* (Rom. 1:23-28)
* (Jude 7)
* (Jude 23)
* (Rev. 22:15)
* (Jer. 6:15)
* (I Timothy 4:2-4)

==Sodom and homosexuality==
''See also: [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation#Genesis 19|Genesis 19]]''

Classical Jewish commentary consistently condemns homosexuality, yet comments on Sodom, though not abundant, most usually mention traditions which tell of the cruelty of Sodom to strangers, but not its manifestation in homosexual rape. Reasons for this include the references to lack of charity and injustice elsewhere in the Bible, such as Ezekiel, and also because the angels were in Sodom ''because'' God had already decided to destroy it and so the attempted homosexual rape was "just" further evidence of the total depravity of the city. However, Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom,

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" [133-34; ET Jonge 422-23] (The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler).

In summarizing the Genesis 19 account, the Jewish historian Josephus also stated:

“About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96).

Other statements from the [[Pseudepigrapha]] are seen to testify likewise.

Traditionally, most Christian scholars and commentators have seen homoeroticism as evidencing the extreme moral degradation of Sodom, and ultimately being causative of its judgment, with the destruction of Sodom being an eternal statement on God's view of [[homosexual]] relations.

Concerning Jude 1:7, the noted but normally tempered commentator, Matthew Henry solemnly warns,

...they were guilty of abominable wickedness, not to be named or thought of but with the utmost abhorrence and detestation; their ruin is a particular warning to all people to take heed of, and fly fRom. fleshly lusts that war against the soul, 1Pe_2:11. “These lusts consumed the Sodomites with fire from heaven, and they are now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; therefore take heed, imitate not their sins, lest the same plagues overtake you as did them. God is the same holy, just, pure Being now as then; and can the beastly pleasures of a moment make amends for your suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? Stand in awe, therefore, and sin not,” Psa_4:4.

Likewise John Gill comments,

...and going after strange flesh; or "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do,...

Also, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown:

...going after strange flesh — departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural. In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame.

Archibald Thomas Robertson adds,

Strange flesh (sarkos heteras). Horrible licentiousness, not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Rom_1:27) for which the very word “sodomy” is used (Gen_19:4-11).

In contrast, pro homosexual apologists most typically contend that the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19 was non-sexual inhospitality,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition', p. 8; McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Boswell, Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality, pp 93-94</ref> and which polemic primarily focuses upon the Hebrew word for ''know'' in Gn. 19:5 (and synginomai the Greek [[Septuagint]]) and the attribution of non-sexual sins in Ezekiel 16:49 and Matthew 11:20-24. Traditionalists counter that sound [[Bible exegesis]] best evidences that Lot's countrymen (the Sodomites) sought sex.<ref>[http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 Gregory Koukl, What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?]</ref><ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480 Dave Miller, Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?]</ref> This is based upon the use of "know in Gn. 19:8 and its 14 other occurrences in the O.T.(and synginomai in Gn. 39:10 and in the Apocrypha and other literature) for sex, as well as the parallel story of Judges 19, and the specific attribution of sexual sins to Sodom and its region in Jude 1:7, concluding in a perverse manner of such.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=early+christian+writings+on+homosexuality&source=bl&ots=ZjVFV3k7Fe&sig=75PdqP0qrE9AeeJxBSlcfhG0hdE&hl=en&ei=ljkbSu7xF4S0MJCchY8P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19#PPA36,M1 Homosexuality, by James B. DeYoung, pp. 32-39, 118-122]</ref>

===Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah (False religion)===

Rulers in Israel are addressed as heads of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isaiah and Jeremiah due their false worship, and the injustices and other aspects of immorality whichg resulted from it. (cf. Romans 1:16-32)

:''Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.'' (Isaiah 1:10,11)

False worship is also associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Jeremiah,

:''And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.'' (Jeremiah 23:13, 14)

The prophets of Jerusalem reprove Israel for its widespread adultery, lying, and strengthening the hand of evildoers. This reference to supporting evildoers and remaining impenitent is seen as a most important Old Testament reference to Sodom, outside of Genesis.

===Sodom in Ezekiel (Idleness, or affluence without charity)===

Ezekiel 16:49, 50 similarly explain that the sins of Sodom were pride, materialism, haughtiness, and neglect of the poor and needy, and which the story of Lot exemplified.

However, such a condition is usually concomitant with sexual sin, and is implicated in the fall of the [[Roman Empire]].<ref>(historian D. Earl), referenced by Young, Homosexuality, p. 153</ref> Ezekiel goes to state that the Sodomites committed abomination, with the Hebrew word used here being tow'ebah. In the Old Testament this word is normally used in connection with idol worship, such as in Deuteronomy 7:26, as well as other moral sins, including those of a sexual nature. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 16:2258; 22:11; 33:26)

===Sodom in the Gospels===

In the gospels, Jesus sends His disciples out on a mission to preach his word, and to heal the sick, and cast out demons, [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:11-15;&version=49; Matthew 10:5-15] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:5-12;&version=49; Luke 10:1-12] and further instructs them,

:''In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. (Mk. 6:10-12)

This is understood by some as evidencing that the cause of Sodom's judgment was inhospitality.<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50; Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97</ref> Countering this it is pointed out that the reason Jesus codemned those cities was "because they repented not." (Mt. 11:20), which, as in the inhospitably of Sodom, was the roor cause of their rejection of the disciples of the Lord.<ref>[http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Homosexual_relations_and_the_Bible#Ezekiel_16:49_and_inhospitality_texts Homosexual relations and the Bible]</ref>

===Sodom in Jude===

The most explicit reference to Sodom in the New Testament is found in the short book of Jude, in which one aspect has seen some varied interpretations.

:''I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.'' - Jude 5 -7 {KJV)

This section is part of a discourse warning of [[apostasy]], in which contemporary examples of those who are acting in rebellion to truth are likened to past examples, from Israelites who were faithless and disobedient to God, to angels who left their ordained position in rebellion against God, to Sodom and Gomorrah and like cities, who likewise acted in rebellion to God's order. While Sodom did not have the light the previous parties were given, as they were pagan Canaanites, pagan rebellion is detailed in [[Roman 1]], in which many iniquities are named as the result of rejection of truth which God has given by way of creation.

The part of verse 7 which commentators have found intriguing is "going after strange flesh". Pro homosexual writers seek to disallow its meaning as referring to homosexual relations, pointing out that the word for "strange" usually means ''another'' or ''other'', and contend that if it was sexual, then it referred attempted sex with angels. However, countering this is the traditionalist argument which points out that the wickedness of Sodom was regional, and that no distinction is indicated that only Sodom was going after strange flesh. Genesis 18 reveals that the angels appearance as men was in order to find out whether the cry of Sodomy was true, and it is certain that this cry was not that of seeking sex with angels. It is also understood that it would be unlikely that the Sodomites (or even Lot: Heb. 13:2) knew Lot's visitors men were angels. In addition, it is seen that the word for strange can easily mean that is which is unlawful or perverse, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible, Jude 1:7]</ref> Dave Miller states this pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref> Gagnon provides six indications why "giving themselves over to fornication" alludes, at least in part, to attempted male-male intercourse.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm RESPONSE TO PROF. L. WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN’S REVIEW IN ANGLICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW; On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7]</ref> After examining evidence for both positions, Thomas E. Schmidt states, "The first Christians undoubtedly connected the sin of Sodom to the sin of same-sex relations and used the name of city as a symbol for extreme sexual wrongdoing, including but not limited to same-sex relations.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow?+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA97,M1 Straight & narrow? by Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref>

==Other References==

<References/>

[[category:Biblical Places]]

==External Links==
*[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Jude Homosexual relations and the Bible]

Talk:Atheism and women

2014-11-11T02:33:38Z

Tollerson:

I think this entire article is analytically questionable. At a minimum, more and better research is necessary to support its thesis with a straight face.

Have there been any actual peer-reviewed studies looking at whether women find atheism an unappealing characteristic in a man? Certainly many devout women would have a problem with it - I am not questioning that - but there are also female atheists in the world, as well as agnostics who likely wouldn't be too troubled by a partner's atheism. All this article seems to cite is a study showing that fewer women are active in atheist organizations. While this might mean there are fewer female atheists, it might also be that female atheists are merely less likely to participate in such organizations, or to traffic such websites. In other words, there is no way to know if there are more male atheists than female atheists based on the evidence presented here, and/or whether male atheists experience significant romantic difficulties arising out of or relating to their atheism. When one considers that many religious people experience difficulty relating to finding a mate who shares their specific religious beliefs (consider the Jew living in a predominantly Catholic city, for instance, or an evangelical Christian living in the heavily Mormon Utah...or anyone living in one of the very diverse major cities), it may be that atheists experience no added level of difficulty at all. I do not think that the conclusion this section of the article attempts to draw is truly supported by the evidence cited therein.

Similarly, have there been any studies showing a correlation between atheism and Asperger's? If so, which way does the correlation run? E.g., are atheists significantly more likely to have Asperger's than the general population, or is it that people with Asperger's are more likely to be atheists? Correlation, after all, does not imply causation. Or is the author (and/or the quoted Vox Day) assuming a link exists because he (she?) personally finds atheists (at least the ones inclined to discuss their atheism in public fora) unpleasant and difficult to deal with? There are different types of socially awkward behavior associated with a variety of psychological profiles. Without further evidence than the author's personal viewpoint (experimental data perhaps), the Vox Day quote is basically just an opinion, with little information about the data from which the opinion was formed. Fine for an editorial page, but is it really appropriate in something purporting to be an encyclopedia, i.e., a repository of factual knowledge? Seems like someone needs to do some actual research.

I ask all this because I know a number of atheists, and while certainly there are some who are argumentative and challenging to deal with (ones I think of as proselytizing atheists), there are also those who do not feel the need to discuss their beliefs with acquaintances. The conclusions in this article may be accurate for a vocal subset of the total population of atheists, or the conclusions may not be accurate at all, and may merely be the product of wishful thinking or "selection bias" (the tendency to give credence to evidence that supports one's beliefs and to discount evidence that contradicts them) on the part of the author. I certainly wouldn't cite the article in its present form as evidence of anything other than the uneven quality of an encyclopedia produced entirely by its users. [[User:SueDunham|--Sue Dunham]] 01:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:Religious men are easier to control via a carefully laid out ideological system which atheism intrinsically lacks and therefore women are less likely to be interested in an atheist just as you'd prefer a well disciplined and trained dog to a feral one. Being atheist tells you absolutely nothing about the person's moral or ethical code. Yes, there have been several studies indicating that atheists are less attractive to women than religious men. Women are naturally attracted to social status in mates and atheists rarely have much in the way of social status except in communist countries. For example, the religious group that raised me says that man is the authority in the house (Assemblies of God) but teaches women that males are actually beneath her and she dictates and manipulates their rights (this is from a Bill Gothad manual for women): http://imageshack.com/a/img20/2118/sn850249j.jpg

::::Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger's Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/[[evolution|evolutionist]] community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: [[militant atheism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|social effects of the theory of evolution]] ). In fact, it is arguably the best explanation for the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheist/evolutionist community. In addition, ultimately the decision to reject or be reconciled with [[God]] is a matter relating to the [[grace]] of God and [[free will]] and nobody is forced into [[atheism]] due to a physical condition. Please make an equally solid or better counter argument via proof and evidence. Also, please answer [[Shockofgod|"the question"]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:08, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Copy editing request ==

''Atheism and rape''

Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.
 
'''change to'''
Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.
:Honestly, the amount of errors on this wiki; typos, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity and many more are a disgrace. What a truly pathetic effort; and yet when I try to correct it I can't. Dear me. GOD gave your skills, and to not use them is an offence to HIM. [[User:Pdorme|Pdorme]] 17:07, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
:I suppose GOD gave you the skill of ''whining'' about others poor typo, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity problems? GOD didn't give you the skill of ''making corrections'' without whining? Just who is ''really'' offending GOD here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:14, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
::And to top it off, Pdorme, you have been here since July 6, with barely a dozen edits on your part, none of them making so much as an effort to make the corrections you whine about. I suspect that your attitude has more to do with a defense of atheism than anything even remotely-related to mere spelling corrections; after all, you made your whining complaint on this particular page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:18, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

== Wired saying "atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." ==

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:46, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
::Please elaborate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Got this information from a certain website: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html Need to read more of article than I read so far. If exact quote cannot be used, will need to make judgment call if entirely of article supports Vox Day's use. From what I read so far, the person at the party (or social gathering) appears to be making the unsupported claim of atheism (there is no God) and relishing proclaiming this unsupported claim to intentionally and boastfully potentially aggravate some people. Plus, the type of person described does seem to like to gratuitously aggravate people in general. That is quarrelsome and socially challenged behavior, isn't it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:05, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here is a quote from the article you listed: "Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness." This doesn't jive with your representation of all atheists as belligerents. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:15, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
Either the article uses the terms that you ascribe to it, or it does not. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that Vox Day's, whoever the heck that is, interpretation of the article represents what the article actually says, especially given the extract that Sharon provides, which really runs counter to that interpretation. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I have not finished reading the article yet, but I did replace some of the material. Within 7-14 days (maybe sooner), I plan on reading the article in its entirety. In addition, I don't recall using the phrase "all atheists" or using similar terminology. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:10, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
:::The phrase "atheists are (or tend to be) ______" is a blanket statement that leaves the reader with the impression that '''''all''''' atheists are _____. Terms such as "many", "some", "a few", etc., quantify the statement, and give the writer more leeway to believably protest his/her intent when readers disagree with him/her. This has been a MAJOR point in my arguments with you over your "fat people are atheists" statements. You are a master at blanket statements, and then refuse to rectify them. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:37, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Gary Wolf is an agnostic who does not have a lot of antipathy towards atheists. He does think that many atheists are impolite men through the illustration he gave about social gatherings and atheists and the question he posed at social gatherings. He is also not rooting for New Atheists. Wolf writes: "Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd". After all is said and done, the piece is critical of New Atheism and the significant number of atheists he considers impolite and going beyond the evidence since atheism has no proof and evidence that it is true. Since that is the scope of the article, I decided to pull the quote. As an aside, I did find Gary North's and Kevin Kelly's "Quantified Self" movement interesting in terms of using current technology as it can be used to break bad habits and establish new habits for people and the technique has some empirical support. [http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_wolf_the_quantified_self.html][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9618126] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2014-11-10T22:02:29Z

Tollerson: /* Was he an angel? */

[[/archive 1]]
{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was he an angel?==

The [[Unification faith]] identifies Satan as the archangel [[Lucifer]]. Is this a common Christian belief? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:Yes, Lucifer was the most beautiful Angel in God's Kingdom. He lead the Angels before the creation of Man. But some time after or during. Lucifer got jealous. He grew to resent the Humans for taking up all of Gods time. For choising the imperfect and lesser beings over the perfect and first created servants of God. He managed to convince one third of God's angels to rise up with him commit the ultimite sin. Willing and Knowingly attempt to bring down God. They never stood a chance when Archangel Michael took command and personally lead the charge to put down the rebellion and cast him and his ilk to Earth to be forever cursed as Fallen or Demons and have their Angelic names taken away from them. You should never refer to Satan as Lucifer. He doesn't deserve that name anymore. Michael took up command of the Angels after Lucifer fell.

Earlier, some question if Satan can be said to be imprisoned if he can walk on Earth. But think about this. Lucifer, the Proud and self-centered Angel who thought little of the imperfect and fallible little Humans and their world, forced to walk among them or sit in Hell. That is the perfect punishment for him in my option. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

:Yes, Satan is/was most certainly an angel. Jews still believe Satan is an angel as they do not believe angels are capable of disobeying God and therefore Satan could never rebel against God as that would mean the angels were imperfectly created. Satan is a servant of God in Job and God accepts responsibility for Satan's actions against Job when Job and God speak. This means, of course, that the serpent was also working with permission of God when he tempted Eve. [[User:Tollerson|Tollerson]] 17:02, 10 November 2014 (EST)

== The origin of Satan's evil ==

Given that the universe did not originally contain any evil, and Satan was created by God, who, being all-knowing and all-powerful had the ability to create Satan in such a way that he would incapable of becoming evil, how did Satan become evil? Satan could not have had free will, given that he is part of a universe which is basically a machine proceeding from a beginning state to a predestined end state; however complicated the machine may be, its destiny is still known beforehand to an omniscient Being, and indeed is controlled beforehand by an omniscient and omnipotent Creator.

So, since everything that occurs, including Satan's fall, must be God's will, how then do we define evil? Satan's "evil" must be the same kind of "evil" that exists in, say, a computer game in which the creator has purposefully scripted evil doings and evil characters into the plot, and programmed them to occur under specific circumstances. As the program executes, the evil will inevitably transpire in accordance with the program; it cannot happen any other way. And there is no outside force that can act on the universe, other than God's, so there is no way God's will can be thwarted. And so we cannot define "evil" as being that which is against God's will. Unless of course, we presume the existence of a universe in which two contradictory things can be simultaneously true — i.e, that God's will can fulfilled at the same time as it isn't fulfilled. Contradictions are not impossible when one assumes the existence of a truly omnipotent being; in such a case, they become [[paradox]]es. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 20:22, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

:Knowledge has limitations so we have to assume much, faith guides us to the right answers. All was created good by a good God. Puny humans look at the Creator and say why do you allow evil? Humble servants know to ask the question differently. Why has God given us so much good? We are not deserving in our fallen nature, we have so much to be thankful for. Glorious mysteries... how, why, when may remain just that...a mystery. Don't under estimate free will. Satan chose, man chose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:44, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

:Even logic has surprises. Faith and love would be less meaningful if they were not choices, and if some were unable to reject them. Order is meaningful because of the possibility of disorder. What God created is good, but it is also meaningful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Is this serious? ==
Part of this article says you can fight Satan by calling him names or using sunlight.
Is this a joke?
Satan is like Dracula and gets his feelings hurt easily?
What is this based on?
Sounds like instructions from a computer game or something.
:Satans very prideful. calling him names is more likely to piss him off more. however he also cant stand light >.>--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
Seriously? Where are you getting this information from? I don't remember reading in the Bible that light keeps Satan away. If that was true, does standing in sunlight help keep you from sinning as Satan can't get at you?
I cant help but think this article has been hijacked as a parody.[[User:Webcomicwizard|Webcomicwizard]]
: Maybe people are thinking of that song, you know. "This little light of mine~. I"m gonna let it shine~" Maybe.[[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::Physical light? Doesn't do jack to him. Light Light? He can barely stand it being the embodiement of sin at this point. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:43, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism is a religion

2014-11-10T21:45:21Z

Tollerson:

Suggest retitling to "Atheism as a religion" and request for proof that the theory of evolution is an Atheist doctrine. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby --[[User:Hadron|Hadron]] 05:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== If atheism is a religion... ==

...does that mean that it's impossible for a person to not have a religion? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Smartt's "Criteria" ==

Daniel Smartt suggests that Ninian Smart's list can be used as criteria which define worldviews as religions. This seems like a misreading of Smart, who instead offers the list as the things we should look at when analyzing worldviews, religious or secular. In other, he meant for his list to be applied to secular worldviews as a way of understanding them, but not so that we can define them as religions. You can read it [http://books.google.com/books?id=14j2UrLCi64C&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=ninian+smart+narrative&source=bl&ots=Hq3WwG_mVT&sig=j-8FpwSdqohURYodSdcl46erSJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FgybT6zxIc-_gAe864X6Dg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ninian%20smart%20narrative&f=false here] on page 2:.

(This is another person) I agree with the person above me; the criteria are obviously meant for both religious and secular worldviews, so anything that fills the criteria is not necessarily a religion. If it were just for religion, it would be missing something sort of...uh...important for religions: belief in something supernatural? Without that, you could could argue almost anything as a "religion"; Boy Scouts of America, for example. It has Narrative (campfire stories, mission statement, camp history), Experiential (there's a lot of personal experience to be had in the organization, which can be life-changing or personality-changing things), Social (BSoA has leaders), Ethical (from the BSoA website: "A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." sounds like they encourage ethical behavior to me), Ritual (graduation ceremony), and Material (Camp grounds are a gathering place, American Flag is respected). Nothing doctrinal (at least nothing concerning the "nature of reality") but hey, 6 out of 7 isn't bad, eh, since you don't need all 7 to qualify. I believe my Public School also qualifies as a religion, since we have narrative (school history, we have a wall dedicated to artifacts and stories from the beginnings of the school), experiential (I have life changing experiences here), Social (We have the principal and faculty as leaders), Ethical (we have a code of character and conduct that is stressed every day, etc.), Doctrinal (We have a philosophy class where we discuss the nature of the universe or whatever), Ritual (Graduation), and Material (the school building where we gather, as well as the monument to the school founder and the artifacts on the history wall). The point is that there are plenty of things that qualify that don't involve the supernatural, which is one of the key points of religion. But as I said, those criteria aren't meant as qualifiers for a religion, but a worldview.

That said, Atheism doesn't even qualify as a worldview, as none of the things you mentioned are actually valid qualifications for each criterion. The difference between the qualifiers used for religions (rituals, beliefs, narratives, ethics, etc.) and the ones you used for Atheism, is that the religious ones are part of the religion by definition. The ethics outlined in the bible are the official "Christian" ethics, the rituals and narratives are all essential parts of Christianity. Alternatively, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God. Anything else beyond that can be described as "Atheistic" in the sense that they don't involve God, but they are not purely Atheist things to do and are not essential parts of Atheism. If you are Atheist you do not have to believe the theory of evolution is true, and not all Atheists do. You do not have to reject God to be an Atheist. That assumes you believe in God in the first place. A person raised as a hermit in the woods would never have the experience of "rejecting God". So you could believe evolution is false, never "reject God", not go to Atheist gatherings (or even know that they occur), never know about any prominent Atheists, never spend time considering the ultimate nature of reality or convincing yourself of the non-existence of God or that faith is illegitimate, never get married, not be concerned about the religion vs. secular nature of your funeral, and not believe that nature is sacred, and you can still be an Atheist. The only thing involved in Atheism is not believing religious claims of a God. Yes you can argue that some things are Atheistic, but that ultimately just means they don't involve God, not that they are a "part of Atheism" or what have you. In essence, you don't have to do anything to be an Atheist. There are no positive beliefs, rituals, or experiences that are a central part of Atheism. If you are not religious, you are Atheist by default.

—Glenwing

P.S. Here's another way of thinking about it. What if you don't believe in Christanity or any other religion. And then you also reject Atheism as well. You don't believe evolution, don't attend any Atheist conventions, etc. What are you then? Nothing? Yes. We have a term for that. It's called Atheism. Without Theism. Without Religion. Yes it's true that many atheists share beliefs on topics, but that is ultimately meaningless as those things still aren't essential to what atheism really is and what it is to be an atheist.
::::User: Williagz's suggestions re: Smartt were added. See material [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism/archive21#Misrepresentation_and_Misspelling_of_Ninian_Smart HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:58, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

== Essay? ==

Shouldn't this be an essay? [[User:AndrewLe|AndrewLe]] 10:53, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
:Why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:39, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
::Because it is the exposition of a point of view, not an encyclopedic article. [[User:AndrewLe|AndrewLe]] 11:50, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
::::Atheism meets the criteria of a religion (the 7 criteria). The article is not going to be labeled an essay. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:02, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
:::::Your choice. But it ''is'' an essay nonetheless. [[User:AndrewLe|AndrewLe]] 13:13, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
AndrewLe, your first post on the talk page in the form of a question didn't exactly impress me. It appeared as if you could not defend your stance and/or possessed intellectual sloth. Subsequent posts confirmed this matter. Declaring an accusation to be true and showing it to be true are two different matters.

By the way, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Christianity [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html has abundant proof and evidence] that it is true. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:34, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
:AndrewLe, why don't you provide proof and evidence that atheism is not a religion? That would have been the most reasonable thing to do when posting to this talk page. I don't think you can do it because atheism is a religion and meets Ninian Smart's criteria of a religion. In addition, atheism lacks proof and evidence that it is true and requires blind and unreasonable faith. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
::I never said atheism is true, and I never said atheism is not a religion, so I have no obligation to support either of those positions. My concern is limited to the ''form'' of this article, not its content. At [[Conservapedia:Essays]] it says, "Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view." [[Atheism is a religion]] represents a particular point of view on an issue that is the subject of debate (as is stated in its first sentence). It is an essay. [[User:AndrewLe|AndrewLe]] 15:58, 27 July 2014 (EDT)
::::AndrewLe, are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? By the way, I changed the beginning of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

== Evidence that many atheists are in fact religious ==

Arguing for or against biological evolution is not an argument for or against the existence of a deity - it is only an argument for or against the assertion that the earth is both young and that observable lifeforms were created and have always existed in its present form. The fact that even atheists who accept evolution believe it is evidence against the existence of a deity is evidence of a persistent strain of irrational thinking among many of them. [[User:Tollerson|Tollerson]] 16:45, 10 November 2014 (EST)

Talk:Star Trek franchise

2014-11-10T07:51:36Z

Tollerson: /* The Quark video */

Do you have episode sources for the Klingons and Ferangi religions? It seems it may have been mentioned, but wasn't a major part of the focus such as with the first two examples.

One of the difficulties with the series is that there is nothing approaching the God of monotheism. The religions are seen as false and stupid, ignorant people worshipping living entities who they don't understand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The people aren't normally seen as ignorant or stupid. They respect freedom of religion. There are many points where the prophets in the Bajoran religion actually intervene. Although the ethiest charecters likely dismiss them as powerful wormhole aliens. {{unsigned|Double Edge}} circa. 31st October 2007.

== Religion ==
<blockquote>
At one point when Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" he makes a comment "The Universe is not so badly run."
</blockquote>

I believe this is a reference to the episode "Tapestry", where Picard dies and goes to the afterlife only to find Q. His comment is not against religion, but rather an attack on Q.

{{unsigned|Mgroop}}

It is an attack on Q. But suggesting that the universe is run means that he is not an ethiest.

Double Edge
: I'm inclined to disagree. How well it's "run" is probably just a euphemism, not a direct indication that he believes that it is ''run'' as such. It could also be making point ''on the assumption'' that it's "run", which would be the case if Q was in charge, i.e. merely refuting Q's claim within Q's assumptions, but without necessarily accepting those assumptions. In other words, I don't think you can draw that much out of that comment. Incidentally, I changed to wording of that part to reflect this just ''before'' reading this talk page! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Having not watched TNG in quite some time and never having the fondness for it that I did for the original, I've been reluctant to access that area of my brain, but a couple of thoughts do come to mind. When was it ever stated that Q ran the universe? He was an observer of the universe, and he would play with various parts of it, but I never picked up the idea that he was in any way responsible for running it or in charge of it. Also, there is an episode where the Enterprise is trapped in a section of space with an entity that is going to experiment on them to see what different forms of death are like; it would take about half the crew. There is a discussion between the captain and 'Ryker' and 'Troi' (actually the alien) about whether or not Piccard believes in God, and he states something to the effect that he does because the universe is just a bit too orderly otherwise. TNG accepts the existence of God, but it's the concept of a personal God where He has revealed Himself that is harshly denigrated in other episodes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
::: I don't recall the Q episode very well, but the article says that Q ''implied'' that he ran the universe. It would be typical of Q to claim or imply something like that, simply because Q was loose with the truth like that. The "statement" was probably nothing more than Q grandstanding. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)
----
Learn together changed:
:Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, seeming instead to simply ignore it.
to:
:Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, but would make reference to it as a part of culture.
followed by some examples of references to religion.

Now, I'm not criticising the edit, but I do wonder... Do we know whether this was Roddenberry's doing, or perhaps the initiative of the writer(s)? What I'm ''suggesting'' (and a suggestion is all that it is) is that one or more writers introduced these religious references, and because they were not overtly promoting Christianity, Roddenberry didn't object to them. If my suggestion is correct, then perhaps the article should reflect that somehow.

Yeah, I suppose I could do some research and see if Roddenberry wrote any of those episodes, or see if they all had the same writer, but I thought that someone else might have some idea on this.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

:I have no personal knowledge. To be safe we could remove the mention to Roddenberry specifically and replace it with more generic wording. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:: I've made the wording more generic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== ChrisSmith's edit ==
I consider [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=500360&oldid=375262 this edit] to be parody, but will hold off reverting it in case someone thinks that there is something that can be salvaged from it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 17 August 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
:Hrm, I didn't intend for it to come across as "parody", but maybe it was a little enthusiastic. I think removing all of the content was a little far - I was wondering why there's no mention of the clear socialist ideals of the show: working towards the betterment of humanity, with no money etc. If this isn't left-wing I don't know what is. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 18:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::You think working towards the benefit of humanity is left-wing? Interesting. Most of us on this site would consider that to be a conservative idea. The difficulty with liberals is that if there is a hole in a boat that is causing water to come in, they believe the appropriate action is to keep shoveling out the water - and leave the hole.

::As far as Star Trek goes, the show is humanistic, showing a society that has gone beyond consumption difficulties, racial differences, entitlements, or national infighting. Democracy has prevailed and merit rules. Kirk isn't the captain based on a lottery system. He is the captain based upon years of hard work and ability. There is nothing in those idea that is liberal. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:39, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

:: (Edit conflict with Learn together) What's left-wing about working toward the betterment of humanity? Rather, that is a ''Christian'' thing to do (e.g. most charities have been started by Christians; Christians donate more than non-believers). Besides, the article did already mention that aspect:
{{QuoteBox|As a humanist, Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions. People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions. This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of heaven, except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.}}
:: The point is, they are ''not'' (exclusively) socialist values. They are also ''Christian'' values. The difference (apart from the one mentioned) is that socialists want to impose these values on others; Christians want to do them out of love.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, I can accept that :) thanks for being so civil. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 14:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Make this an overview article ==

Although this article starts off talking about the original series, much of it is talking about the whole "Star Trek universe". I was thinking that we ought to have a separate "Star Trek universe" (or similar) article and make this one ''just'' about the original series, but now think that perhaps this article should be about the whole Star Trek universe and that we should create a separate ''Star Trek (original series)'' or similar article. Thoughts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
: By the way, lacking any objection, I did this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Transpose tables? ==
I would like to swap the axes of the two tables under the heading ''The series and films''. That is, have the titles down the left instead of along the top. Is there any objection to this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
: There being no objection, I've transposed them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Remove relationship views? ==
Just though that we might remove the section about relationship views since it really is a minor part of the whole Star Trek universe in terms of the different series. Star Trek was always about openness and never really but a huge emphasis on relationships, in whatever form it was.

== Politics? ==

I see that an edit describing Star Trek as politically liberal was recently reverted but I don't think it's necessarily untrue. Star Trek made/makes many political commentaries and is generally considered a liberal show (promotes one world government, frowns upon capitalism, etc) so I think it might be worth adding a politics section to this article. I'm not enough of a Trekkie to be an authority on the subject however, so would anyone else like to take this up? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== On the topics of the political views of this show. ==

Now, I do not want to cause a fuss here, but I watched a few reruns of this show recently, and it seems to be very influenced by leftist elements, did some digging, and found some members of the cast and crew, were in fact, liberals. This did influence the show in large, but mostly unseen ways. Example: the world (or universe) of star trek seems to be heavily influence by communism. The government seems to be in the model of Marx's communist manifesto. Now, the focus of the show is on Kirk and his crew, so we as the viewer do not see this too often, but I feel it should be addressed in the article. Perhaps it is addressed in an episode I have not seen myself. Please post your answers or opinions to this. Thanks. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 16:46, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Also addressing the other co mentor above me, I feel that the show's Politics should be addressed in the article. perhaps we could see the edit and confirm it's validity and change whatever is wrong with it. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 16:49, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:I think it would be good to include something on the franchise's politics. That's kind of what the project is all about. But it's simplistic to reduce its ideology to "liberal", "communist", or any other one-word description. The shows were produced over many years, by a diverse group of people, and with little emphasis on ideological consistency. Some shows claim that the Federation does not use money, while others give prices in "credits." Various characters and peoples can be identified as ideological stand-ins: The Ferengi represent capitalism, the Borg are ultra-socialist, and Khan Noonien Singh is a genetically superior Nazi/Aryan. In the Cold War-based episodes, the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans stand in for the U.S., Russia, and China. [http://knowledgeeater.blogspot.com/2009/08/star-trek-essay.html This essay] may be a good place to start. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 21:39, 18 December 2013 (EST)
:[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/18/star_trek_economy_federation_is_only_mostly_post_scarcity.html This article] describes how Star Trek characters run various businesses, even though they have no need for money. So the Federation's economic system can be described as "capitalism for the fun of it." This may not be a realistic view of human nature, but it is definitely not Marxism. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 23:41, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Fair point. But I was asking if this should be put in the article. I did not want to edit it without discussing the implications of this topic first. Thanks. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 23:42, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:I don't have a sense of what it is you want to write about. The political views of the cast and the crew? If the key grip was a Communist, why would anyone care? But you can go ahead and write what you want to write. If someone doesn't like it, they can change it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 14:13, 21 December 2013 (EST)

That is exactly what I want to write about. Politics was a focus of the show, and the politics of the show was influenced by the opinions of the crew. This website is an encyclopedia, so I feel it should be put in.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 20:10, 25 December 2013 (EST)

::My suggestions...
:::In this article concentrate on brief descriptions of the franchise as a whole, and what effect they have had on popular culture, technological innovation, religious, political, and personal influence. It did focus on politics somewhat, but that was in my opinion a sideshow to the fact that it was a primarily a show about exploration and encounters with alien worlds, i.e. an adventure show. That's not to say that Gene Roddenberry didn't make a statement; for example, the kiss between Kirk and Uhura was intended to be as much an attack against established racism as it was to be a fixed plot line in the episode "Plato's Children".
:::Do a "history of Star Trek" as a separate article; what influenced Gene Roddenberry to create the show; what influenced the creation of the sequels and the films?
:::Create separate articles on each of the series, especially ''TOS''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:46, 25 December 2013 (EST)

==The Quark video==
I would interpret [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hdiuRMK3UQ this video] as Quark expressing love-hate feelings toward the Federation. There nothing in it clarifying what kind of government or economy the Federation might have. It’s just one of many scenes where these issues are evaded. The Federation represents “the good guys,” not an ideology like big government that would make it divisive with viewers. If the show presents the Federation as above ideology, then it is. There is no class warfare issue in Trek, so it is misleading to describe the Ferengi as “evil capitalists.” The Ferengi are usually depicted simply as unpleasant money grubbers. There are even several episodes where they are depicted sympathetically. In the Trek universe, the epitome of evil is the Borg collective, which is clearly socialist. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:55, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:The scene has always bugged me. Feel free to disagree. People argue it's about assimilation, how everyone wants to live in America, but I see sermonizing about how the Ferengi (undeniable capitalist caricatures) will inevitably want to give up their way of life. [[User:JohnBD|JohnBD]] 11:41, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:Sisko demands that Quark remain on the station. Regardless, the Feringi are more swindlers than capitalists. True capitalism relies on the principals of fair business, ethics, consumer understanding. In the technological world of Star Trek, energy is basically unlimited and furthermore seems to be able to be converted directly into structured matter through replicators, additionally, the capacity to travel beyond the speed of light makes land and resources virtually unlimited as well. '''If such technology were actually to exist, then the fundamental underlying principle of economics would be changed as scarcity would simply not really be relevant anymore''' except when it came to holodeck time, sex, and pet animals and other non-material commodities that otherwise can't be replicated. With scarcity pretty much non-existent, money would simply pretty much cease to be. The Borg isn't socialist - it's simply the embodiment of anything and everything that swallows humans through complete domination of the mind. They could be compared to some Communist countries, some religious movements, and even Ancient Rome (Rome might be one of the better comparisons - extremely imperialistic, conquered any and all cultures and brought them into compliance with the Roman state, forced them through violence to submit to Roman culture, believed that some people were inherently suited only to be used as slaves and needed overlords to guide them). I don't think the Borg are meant to be compared to any real political systems. They are an ant/bee colony - there's one episode of Voyager where a man whose world was destroyed by the Borg is upset that Janeway made a deal with the Borg and he's infuriated at her because he says she had a choice but that hating the Borg is like hating a hurricane - comparing them to a force of nature. The Borg represent any and all philosophies and ideologies that conquer and function by destroying the individual and that's not limited to Communists. [[User:Tollerson|Tollerson]] 02:50, 10 November 2014 (EST)

Talk:Star Trek franchise

2014-11-10T07:50:44Z

Tollerson: /* The Quark video */

Do you have episode sources for the Klingons and Ferangi religions? It seems it may have been mentioned, but wasn't a major part of the focus such as with the first two examples.

One of the difficulties with the series is that there is nothing approaching the God of monotheism. The religions are seen as false and stupid, ignorant people worshipping living entities who they don't understand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The people aren't normally seen as ignorant or stupid. They respect freedom of religion. There are many points where the prophets in the Bajoran religion actually intervene. Although the ethiest charecters likely dismiss them as powerful wormhole aliens. {{unsigned|Double Edge}} circa. 31st October 2007.

== Religion ==
<blockquote>
At one point when Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" he makes a comment "The Universe is not so badly run."
</blockquote>

I believe this is a reference to the episode "Tapestry", where Picard dies and goes to the afterlife only to find Q. His comment is not against religion, but rather an attack on Q.

{{unsigned|Mgroop}}

It is an attack on Q. But suggesting that the universe is run means that he is not an ethiest.

Double Edge
: I'm inclined to disagree. How well it's "run" is probably just a euphemism, not a direct indication that he believes that it is ''run'' as such. It could also be making point ''on the assumption'' that it's "run", which would be the case if Q was in charge, i.e. merely refuting Q's claim within Q's assumptions, but without necessarily accepting those assumptions. In other words, I don't think you can draw that much out of that comment. Incidentally, I changed to wording of that part to reflect this just ''before'' reading this talk page! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Having not watched TNG in quite some time and never having the fondness for it that I did for the original, I've been reluctant to access that area of my brain, but a couple of thoughts do come to mind. When was it ever stated that Q ran the universe? He was an observer of the universe, and he would play with various parts of it, but I never picked up the idea that he was in any way responsible for running it or in charge of it. Also, there is an episode where the Enterprise is trapped in a section of space with an entity that is going to experiment on them to see what different forms of death are like; it would take about half the crew. There is a discussion between the captain and 'Ryker' and 'Troi' (actually the alien) about whether or not Piccard believes in God, and he states something to the effect that he does because the universe is just a bit too orderly otherwise. TNG accepts the existence of God, but it's the concept of a personal God where He has revealed Himself that is harshly denigrated in other episodes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
::: I don't recall the Q episode very well, but the article says that Q ''implied'' that he ran the universe. It would be typical of Q to claim or imply something like that, simply because Q was loose with the truth like that. The "statement" was probably nothing more than Q grandstanding. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)
----
Learn together changed:
:Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, seeming instead to simply ignore it.
to:
:Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, but would make reference to it as a part of culture.
followed by some examples of references to religion.

Now, I'm not criticising the edit, but I do wonder... Do we know whether this was Roddenberry's doing, or perhaps the initiative of the writer(s)? What I'm ''suggesting'' (and a suggestion is all that it is) is that one or more writers introduced these religious references, and because they were not overtly promoting Christianity, Roddenberry didn't object to them. If my suggestion is correct, then perhaps the article should reflect that somehow.

Yeah, I suppose I could do some research and see if Roddenberry wrote any of those episodes, or see if they all had the same writer, but I thought that someone else might have some idea on this.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

:I have no personal knowledge. To be safe we could remove the mention to Roddenberry specifically and replace it with more generic wording. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:: I've made the wording more generic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== ChrisSmith's edit ==
I consider [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=500360&oldid=375262 this edit] to be parody, but will hold off reverting it in case someone thinks that there is something that can be salvaged from it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 17 August 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
:Hrm, I didn't intend for it to come across as "parody", but maybe it was a little enthusiastic. I think removing all of the content was a little far - I was wondering why there's no mention of the clear socialist ideals of the show: working towards the betterment of humanity, with no money etc. If this isn't left-wing I don't know what is. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 18:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::You think working towards the benefit of humanity is left-wing? Interesting. Most of us on this site would consider that to be a conservative idea. The difficulty with liberals is that if there is a hole in a boat that is causing water to come in, they believe the appropriate action is to keep shoveling out the water - and leave the hole.

::As far as Star Trek goes, the show is humanistic, showing a society that has gone beyond consumption difficulties, racial differences, entitlements, or national infighting. Democracy has prevailed and merit rules. Kirk isn't the captain based on a lottery system. He is the captain based upon years of hard work and ability. There is nothing in those idea that is liberal. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:39, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

:: (Edit conflict with Learn together) What's left-wing about working toward the betterment of humanity? Rather, that is a ''Christian'' thing to do (e.g. most charities have been started by Christians; Christians donate more than non-believers). Besides, the article did already mention that aspect:
{{QuoteBox|As a humanist, Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions. People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions. This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of heaven, except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.}}
:: The point is, they are ''not'' (exclusively) socialist values. They are also ''Christian'' values. The difference (apart from the one mentioned) is that socialists want to impose these values on others; Christians want to do them out of love.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, I can accept that :) thanks for being so civil. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 14:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Make this an overview article ==

Although this article starts off talking about the original series, much of it is talking about the whole "Star Trek universe". I was thinking that we ought to have a separate "Star Trek universe" (or similar) article and make this one ''just'' about the original series, but now think that perhaps this article should be about the whole Star Trek universe and that we should create a separate ''Star Trek (original series)'' or similar article. Thoughts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
: By the way, lacking any objection, I did this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Transpose tables? ==
I would like to swap the axes of the two tables under the heading ''The series and films''. That is, have the titles down the left instead of along the top. Is there any objection to this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
: There being no objection, I've transposed them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Remove relationship views? ==
Just though that we might remove the section about relationship views since it really is a minor part of the whole Star Trek universe in terms of the different series. Star Trek was always about openness and never really but a huge emphasis on relationships, in whatever form it was.

== Politics? ==

I see that an edit describing Star Trek as politically liberal was recently reverted but I don't think it's necessarily untrue. Star Trek made/makes many political commentaries and is generally considered a liberal show (promotes one world government, frowns upon capitalism, etc) so I think it might be worth adding a politics section to this article. I'm not enough of a Trekkie to be an authority on the subject however, so would anyone else like to take this up? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== On the topics of the political views of this show. ==

Now, I do not want to cause a fuss here, but I watched a few reruns of this show recently, and it seems to be very influenced by leftist elements, did some digging, and found some members of the cast and crew, were in fact, liberals. This did influence the show in large, but mostly unseen ways. Example: the world (or universe) of star trek seems to be heavily influence by communism. The government seems to be in the model of Marx's communist manifesto. Now, the focus of the show is on Kirk and his crew, so we as the viewer do not see this too often, but I feel it should be addressed in the article. Perhaps it is addressed in an episode I have not seen myself. Please post your answers or opinions to this. Thanks. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 16:46, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Also addressing the other co mentor above me, I feel that the show's Politics should be addressed in the article. perhaps we could see the edit and confirm it's validity and change whatever is wrong with it. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 16:49, 18 December 2013 (EST)

:I think it would be good to include something on the franchise's politics. That's kind of what the project is all about. But it's simplistic to reduce its ideology to "liberal", "communist", or any other one-word description. The shows were produced over many years, by a diverse group of people, and with little emphasis on ideological consistency. Some shows claim that the Federation does not use money, while others give prices in "credits." Various characters and peoples can be identified as ideological stand-ins: The Ferengi represent capitalism, the Borg are ultra-socialist, and Khan Noonien Singh is a genetically superior Nazi/Aryan. In the Cold War-based episodes, the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans stand in for the U.S., Russia, and China. [http://knowledgeeater.blogspot.com/2009/08/star-trek-essay.html This essay] may be a good place to start. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 21:39, 18 December 2013 (EST)
:[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/18/star_trek_economy_federation_is_only_mostly_post_scarcity.html This article] describes how Star Trek characters run various businesses, even though they have no need for money. So the Federation's economic system can be described as "capitalism for the fun of it." This may not be a realistic view of human nature, but it is definitely not Marxism. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 23:41, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Fair point. But I was asking if this should be put in the article. I did not want to edit it without discussing the implications of this topic first. Thanks. [[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 23:42, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:I don't have a sense of what it is you want to write about. The political views of the cast and the crew? If the key grip was a Communist, why would anyone care? But you can go ahead and write what you want to write. If someone doesn't like it, they can change it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 14:13, 21 December 2013 (EST)

That is exactly what I want to write about. Politics was a focus of the show, and the politics of the show was influenced by the opinions of the crew. This website is an encyclopedia, so I feel it should be put in.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 20:10, 25 December 2013 (EST)

::My suggestions...
:::In this article concentrate on brief descriptions of the franchise as a whole, and what effect they have had on popular culture, technological innovation, religious, political, and personal influence. It did focus on politics somewhat, but that was in my opinion a sideshow to the fact that it was a primarily a show about exploration and encounters with alien worlds, i.e. an adventure show. That's not to say that Gene Roddenberry didn't make a statement; for example, the kiss between Kirk and Uhura was intended to be as much an attack against established racism as it was to be a fixed plot line in the episode "Plato's Children".
:::Do a "history of Star Trek" as a separate article; what influenced Gene Roddenberry to create the show; what influenced the creation of the sequels and the films?
:::Create separate articles on each of the series, especially ''TOS''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:46, 25 December 2013 (EST)

==The Quark video==
I would interpret [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hdiuRMK3UQ this video] as Quark expressing love-hate feelings toward the Federation. There nothing in it clarifying what kind of government or economy the Federation might have. It’s just one of many scenes where these issues are evaded. The Federation represents “the good guys,” not an ideology like big government that would make it divisive with viewers. If the show presents the Federation as above ideology, then it is. There is no class warfare issue in Trek, so it is misleading to describe the Ferengi as “evil capitalists.” The Ferengi are usually depicted simply as unpleasant money grubbers. There are even several episodes where they are depicted sympathetically. In the Trek universe, the epitome of evil is the Borg collective, which is clearly socialist. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:55, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:The scene has always bugged me. Feel free to disagree. People argue it's about assimilation, how everyone wants to live in America, but I see sermonizing about how the Ferengi (undeniable capitalist caricatures) will inevitably want to give up their way of life. [[User:JohnBD|JohnBD]] 11:41, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:Sisko demands that Quark remain on the station. Regardless, the Feringi are more swindlers than capitalists. True capitalism relies on the principals of fair business, ethics, consumer understanding. In the technological world of Star Trek, energy is basically unlimited and furthermore seems to be able to be converted directly into structured matter through replicators, additionally, the capacity to travel beyond the speed of light makes land and resources virtually unlimited as well. If such technology were actually to exist, then the fundamental underlying principle of economics would be changed as scarcity would simply not really be relevant anymore except when it came to holodeck time, sex, and pet animals and other non-material commodities that otherwise can't be replicated. With scarcity pretty much non-existent, money would simply pretty much cease to be. The Borg isn't socialist - it's simply the embodiment of anything and everything that swallows humans through complete domination of the mind. They could be compared to some Communist countries, some religious movements, and even Ancient Rome (Rome might be one of the better comparisons - extremely imperialistic, conquered any and all cultures and brought them into compliance with the Roman state, forced them through violence to submit to Roman culture, believed that some people were inherently suited only to be used as slaves and needed overlords to guide them). I don't think the Borg are meant to be compared to any real political systems. They are an ant/bee colony - there's one episode of Voyager where a man whose world was destroyed by the Borg is upset that Janeway made a deal with the Borg and he's infuriated at her because he says she had a choice but that hating the Borg is like hating a hurricane - comparing them to a force of nature. The Borg represent any and all philosophies and ideologies that conquer and function by destroying the individual and that's not limited to Communists. [[User:Tollerson|Tollerson]] 02:50, 10 November 2014 (EST)