@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Could there be a section for the moral of the parable?  I don't understand it.--[[User:TrTran|TrTran]] 23:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-Uhhh this doesnt really make any sense. How is this a conservative-centric story? Hmmm, did the smoker have breast cancer?
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:12, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
-:If he'd had a gun then he wouldn't have needed the 10¢. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 08:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
-==Parable #3==
-Andrew, does this relate to Jeanne Assam? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 09:55, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-:I only ask because, with a linked news ref, it does make a great story, especially Assam's quote "“I give credit to G-d. G-d was with me." [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 09:57, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-:: Yes, you're sharp!  The quote would make a great addition!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::It is one of those events that stays in the memory! Spine tingling, even for Believers. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:18, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::: Right, it was spine tingling to write that account here!  I see much potential for writing and reading [[conservative parables]].  I wonder what will be next!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-==#1==
-I suppose the conservative insight of this story is never give money to those in need. (Indeed judging from the republicans, this does seem to be the case.) BTW, great reference "This actually happened", I'm tempted to add a fact citation to it.
-How are any of these "Conservative" parables? (well the last one...)'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:25, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
-:I think the links with the parable I added justify it very well; paleos (for I am one) are very concerned with the small, human, familiar and social dimensions and less with the chiselled-in-stone politics that some politicians and all Liberals insist we adhere to. You're a nice Jewish young man, you can see the small-c conservatism I tried to put across, surely?  [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::It's the first one that got me worked up, I'm at the end of my 6th day of my most recent quitting, and I know more then any non-smoker how bad it is to fiend for a smoke, I don't see the "human" dimension of the first story, I'm sorry. If it was me I'd probably sit buy him the pack of smokes, take him out for coffee and share the pack with him...
-::By "Paleo", do you mean a [[Ron Paul]]-esque conservative?
-::: If you gave him a dime, then you'd obviously be hurting him.  "Sharing" his hurtful experience wouldn't undo the harm.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
-::: By the way, [[conservative values]] are superb in helping one conquer addictions (to which all of us are vulnerable).  [[Conservatives]] include many ex-smokers who were able to defeat that difficult addiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::I guess the point of the story is a "free market" type of lesson.  All he had to do was go to another store where tobacco was sold at a lower price.  Maybe he'd even find some more change on the street.  Thats the only point I can find.
-:::: No, he would have gone to the cheapest place first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
-== The Storm ==
-Doesn't this prove that prayer doesn't work?  That the Protestant ship could've been a crew of atheists who also immediately jumped into action, and would've saved themselves, too?
-:It proves that [[God]] helps those who help themselves. [[User:HStrobell|HStrobell]] 11:36, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Your nonsense has been removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-==Liberal parables==
-Is it okay if I make this page?  Liberal values, while not generally embraced by those here, might still have something to offer if you have an open mind.--[[User:ThomasE|ThomasE]] 18:16, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-: OK, let's see what have you have in mind.  We have an open mind here and welcome the truth.  But misleading, made-up stuff, like drug addicts who succeed, won't last, of course.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Drug addicts never succeed Andy? I can think of [[Paul Erdos|at least one]]. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::: Thanks for illustrating my point, DanielB.  An entry that claims that [[Paul Erdos]] was a drug addict will likely result in deletion of the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::He did take large quantities of drugs. What else would you call him? Acutally I would call him a user rather than an addict he did give up cold turkey for a month on a bet. He went back on them claiming it clouded his thinking not taking them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
-What is good for the goose aint good for the gander, eh Aschlalfy. Besides, liberals have no morals hence any [[Liberal Parable]] would only show that following [[Liberal Values]] cause depression, drug addiction and the like.
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:46, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-==Double Standard?==--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
-Hardly a double standard. There are stories in the paper or whatever ''all the time'' about drug dealers commiting crimes like armed robbery but how often is a churchgoer likely to do the same? Hence when it happens it would definatly be headline news. That section should be removed pronto.
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
-:I'll second this - when habitual criminals commit another crime, even a serious one, it's not exactly remarkable, but when a supposedly upstanding member of the church commits a crime, that's newsworthy.  That's why anti-homosexual pastor Ted Haggard's outing and more recently, conservative congressman Vito Fosella's DUI arrest and admission of fatherng a love-child are newsworthy - because the behavior is so out of line with their professed values.  As a "conservative parable" this one really needs to be reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
-How is this gem a "parable". What's the moral of the story? Also, who has the double standard? From the way I see it, it's the churchgoer. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
-The three comments above illustrate that the double standard is defended and even supported by [[liberal]] editors here.  The above comments reinforce the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
-:I have a serious, respectful question - what is the truth, religious principle, or moral lesson that is being presented through this story?  Is it a commentary that all people should be held to the same standard of behavior, regardless of their role in society, and all lapses and misdeeds be regarded equally? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
-What Double Standard? News begins with the word '''NEW''', when junkies rob a store for a fix, it's (unfortunately) nothing new. The only one with the double standard was the churchgoer. Please see [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a "short allegorical story designed to '''illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson'''." What is the point of this parable? That the media sensationalizes stories? (Another thing that isn't news...)
-'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-==$40==
-Where does one begin! By this parable I presume the guy didnt work at all during the period of his life that this reports? On would think he did and find the $40 that following week! Also, why didnt he use a wallet? This is a silly one, it should be removed (like the double standard
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-: AdenJ, he lost the $40 and it doesn't really matter how he lost it.  We've all lost money, of course.  I doubt there is any adult who hasn't.  The point is obviously that money is nothing more than time, and that time is better spent in self-help than in self-worry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-Which I exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-: Your statement makes no sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-Which is exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
-[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-: A little better, but still incomprehensible.  [[Conservative values]] are freely available to all, for the benefit of them, their families, friends and students.  Spread the value to others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-==Not a Math Error==
-Income Tax: 10%
-Amount wanted after tax: $40
-Amount needed to be earned: 10/9 * $40 = $44.44   (.44444444444...)
-''Check: 10% of $44.44 = $4.44, $44.44 - $4.44 = $40''
-Time needed to earn $44.44 = $44.44 / $8 = 5.6 hours
-Not an error [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
-:''based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes).''
-You seem to have overlooked the word "about". And given your username's implied claim to have some statistics expertise, I've blocked your account. When you come back, I expect an apology and a retraction.
-Then you can construct a better example based on an actual example of gross pay and taxes. (You might, for example, ask the manager of your local McDonald's what percent taxes are withheld for his part-time workers.)
-But worst of all, you have argued about the details of the example in a way that draws attention away from the point of it. This does not help the project. It's like the response to [[Expelled]] wherein a write-in campaign complained about the use of an [[Imagine]] sample - not out of any financial concern for a poor suffering widow, but because they wanted to undermine the ability of the producers to articulate their point.
-Next time you undermine the project, you are out. Permanently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:01, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Seems like a serious overreaction to a dispute over math.  StatsMsn wasn't being disrespectful, and the number being 6 or 5.6 doesn't change the ''point'' of the story in any significant way.  Can you cut the guy a break and unblock him since he was being constructive? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
-::: When someone insists on "correcting" someone else, as in StatsMsn's case, then he should have a good justification.  Otherwise, he's just harming the site, and the site is better off by blocking him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
-I don't see the error in his math, just throwing that out there.
-==Fasting woman==
-Wouldn't the killer have been stopped in advance by not having easy access to a gun to begin with? This seems like a logical flaw to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
-:It's only a 'logical flaw' to anyone who is 100% unfamiliar with the real world. In the real world law-abiding people obey the law, but - and let's pay attention here - CRIMINALS DON'T. That's why it is important that a legal system ''should'' accord proper rights of self defence to decent people. And fortunate for those church-goers that the legal system of the USA ''does'', despite the aims of [[Liberal]] do-gooders to undermine democratic freedoms. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
-::I'd discuss this further if you weren't a clear parody account.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::I'll treat that remark with the contempt it deserves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Tax edit on Welfare parable ==
-Daniel's tax edit on the Welfare parable was incorrect, because a charitable donation is tax-deductible and (if done properly) the $5 earned need not be adjusted if all is donated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
-If a homeless person came to your house looking for work, how many people would welcome him onto your property? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 22:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
-: How would the owner know that he is homeless?  Even if was known to be homeless, many would welcome an offer to do the work described in the parable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
-:I disagree. If some random person came up to your front door and said "I'd like to clean up the dog poop in your yard for $5", but looked like they'd been living on the streets for years, I can almost guarantee that a majority of people would turn the potential worker away. An interesting anecdote, when I was working at a seminar for staff working for the AWANA program (google it if you don't know what it is, but basically it is a program where children memorize bible verses and learn about the bible), the director dressed up like a homeless person during lunch and wandered around the entrances to the church where the seminar was being held. Not one person talked to him or offered him anything to eat from the nearly unlimited food supplies the caterers brought. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
-::I removed this parable because I'm fairly certain it's actually a satire of Republican values (oversimplified scenario, forcing the less-fortunate into demeaning labor that nobody else wants to do in exchange for a pittance...)[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::Well, looks like I've been reverted. I didn't expect anyone to listen anyway.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: I listened, but your argument is absurd.  The parable is powerful and persuasive, and that may be the real reason you don't like it.  Regardless, let the readers decide for themselves rather than censoring it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: I find it ''very'' hard to consider a parable about a little girl discussing dog poop to be persuasive.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: Parables are often set forth in, shall we say, in "down to earth" terms.  I doubt you can improve this parable, but constructive suggestions or edits are always welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::I'd suggest that these stories not be in the first person, from a style point. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::While it's right to encourage people to earn things instead of being given them, the metaphor of the homeless man in this story is uncomfortable.  Many people are homeless because they have mental problems that keep them from functioning in jobs and society overall, not because they just don't want to work.  The direction of this story also seems to look down on the homeless in terms of the work that's suitable for them.  If the girl was asked to do something clean and fun to earn money, like sell lemonade, would she be as likely to have suggested the homeless man do it instead?  By choosing something distasteful to push the girl into not wanting to do it herself, it seems like she missed the true point of self-enablement, and made her suggestion for selfish reasons.
-:::::::Like I said, self-enablement is a virtue, so a better story would be about the establishment  of Habitat for Humanity.  I've volunteered for them in NJ often because I know exactly where my time and energy is going, and the beneficiaries of the homes are working just as hard as I am to earn them, not receive them.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Essay? ==
-Shouldn't this be moved to [[Essay:Conservative parables]]?  I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Agreed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
-==The Drowning Man==
-No personal offense to the author, but I'd suggest removing this story completely because it doesn't convey anything positive despite the attempt at teaching about helping people to help themselves.  When a person is drowning it's because they can't swim or tread water, and the reactions in the story are just awful.  Can you imagine a lifeguard throwing a short line and expecting the victim to close the gap, or throwing a line and letting it go?  All this story does is make the conservative look unbelievably callous and the liberal unbelievably stupid, so if the intention is to make a point in a meaningful, believable way then this needs a fresh start.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-Take it out of you wish, but the point of a parable is that it uses a story to demonstrate a lesson, not necessarily a story that could really happen.  Jesus talked about people attempting to remove specks of dust from other's eyes wile walking about with logs in their own eyes.  He didn't mean that literally.  The point of this parable was that liberals tend to throw money (the rope) at problems, even if money won't solve anything; and that coservatives often expect people to help themselves, even when they're not entirely able.  For what it's worth, a minister told me this parable.  [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 16:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::(delayed by edit clash) : What it conveys is this: the conservative only had a limited amount of rope but threw it anyway. The drowning man might not havebeen able to swim to shore but might under his own steam have been able to swim to the rope and be saved. Thus he is helped to save himselfoose: liberals throw money at issues, with no oversight of how wisely it is spent or or how effective it is. Thus, despite huge resources being throown at a problem - resources taken in tax from the hard-working - nothing is achieved. It is simple and easy to understand, very much to the point, and a telling metaphor for rival political and social attitudes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::It just says he threw 50 feet of rope, not that he only had fifty feet of rope. Aside from that, you're reading way too far into a light-hearted story in an attempt to spin it to make the Republicans look like a guild of Jesii. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::Do you think this is a shaggy dog story, then? It's a parable, it is there to make a point.[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::Really? Care to explain the point of Andy not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime? Or the point of any of the other parables? The last two added are jokes, and nothing more. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::''not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime?'' It is quite obvious that the point is to encourage self-reliance. And on the same basis I decline to write a step-by-step guide to understanding parables for you. Read, then think. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
-(unindent)
-I don't see it as my place to remove your parable, CraigC.  I think of this page more like a collection of essays than a fact-based article, so editing should be left up to the original poster after considering the feedback here.  Based on the other comments here, it just seems that this is more like a joke than a parable, with the goal being to get a laugh at the liberal's ineptness  instead of gaining any true insight.  Also, I find your explanation of the parable ironic when reading articles about billions in U.S. taxpayer funds being thrown at Iraqi reconstruction without audits or controls, and then vanishing without explanation.  The conservatives who started this war need to walk the walk when it comes to "values" like this.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Ah, the point of the story was to laugh at people on both sides of the aisle.  Neither conservative nor liberal are stainless saint or dastardly sinner.  I leave it to the will of the majority whether this one stays.[[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: It's good humor, Craig.  I learned from it even though it pokes fun of conservatives too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::So is this page open to conservative jokes as well as conservative parables?  Sounds like a new category is needed instead. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-(unindent) I really liked this one; it made a lot of sense!  The only problem is that the liberal lets go of the 200-foot rope at both ends, so the rope extends only 100 feet into the water.  This seems like a reasonable amount after the conservative says "I provide 50, you provide 50" (paraphrase).  My point is--well...maybe I'm not sure what my point is...maybe the liberal should only be holding onto one of the ends when he lets go?--[[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)
-When I was a young man,I was walking along a beach in the far south of New South Wales (That's Australia) when we saw a man in trouble just beyond the line of the breakers. I swam out and brought him in. I'm a liberal, It didn't need a rope of any particular length; just a person of sufficient will and capacity to do the deed. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:49, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
-:You describe an heroic act, and many liberals do perform heroic acts.  But many liberals, hopefully not you, also do unfortunate acts, like trying to censor the truth of the [[Bible]], to the detriment of many.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 7 June 2013 (EDT)
-== This parable actually happened ==
-I'm not keen on the sentence 'This parable actually happened', which a few of the parables end with. It has impact the first time, but loses its effect with repetition. Also, surely the point of a parable is that it is equally instructive whether it really happened or not. [[Jesus]] did not say that any of His parables had actually happened, but they are no less telling for it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:53, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
-: You raise an interesting point, and I'm sorry it took me over a year to respond to it!  I'm not sure how Jesus described many of his parables.  When He started the [[Prodigal Son]] with words to the effect, "A man had two sons ...," we don't know whether the story was factual or not.  Perhaps it was factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
-== Conservatives and 911 Parable ==
-If they didnt discuss their decisions to travel, how can anyone possibly know that they all decided to travel based on logic and faith?
-: Is there any other plausible explanation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
-== The Flop ==
-I'm not sure how this is a conservative parable. Even the most hardened conservative can agree that innovation is not an exclusively conservative realm; while it was foolish of Fosbury's competitors to mock him and his approach, it fail to see how his perseverance was "conservative". For example, Apple Computers, a liberal company, faced much criticism in its early days (and even now), but has continued to innovate in its field. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:54, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
-:Apple is not particularly liberal and, regardless, innovation is a conservative concept.  Liberals prefer government control, which the opposite of innovation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
-::Interesting, Andy. I've started [[Best conservative innovations a page on conservative innovations]] where we can catalog these sorts of developments. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:00, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
-:::You said you started a new page, but I clicked on it and there's nothing there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:52, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
-:::Accurate link: [[Best conservative innovations]].--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:56, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
-:::: The [[Apple Inc.]] page opens with the line "Apple Inc. is a liberal corporation based out of Cupertino, California" by the way. [[User:RicardD|RicardD]] 12:10, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
-== The idea that innovation is a conservative trait is patently false ==
-There are loads of examples of innovators who exhibited liberal traits. Thomas Edison, Warren Buffet, and Steve Wozniak to name a few. Hell, if even half the people on wikipedia's list of atheist scientists and technological innovators is correct, than this idea is certifiably false. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 22:07, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
-::Take it up with Aschalfly. He put it in there. That makes it true. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:10, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
-:::I see above that liberalism is all about government control, despite the fact that anarchy and rebellion from authority are also liberal traits. I also see through links that abolitionism was a conservative movement, despite the fact that many of the supporters of the movement were socialists (such as Horace Greely) or exhibited other liberal traits (Thaddeus Stevens voted for public schools and other social programs). This is rather disturbing, are we rewriting the history books to help conservatism? Surely every major milestone and achievement can't be laid at conservatism's doorstep? I mean, c'mon, it's a great ideology, but it's made up of people and therefore cannot be perfect as people themselves aren't perfect. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 22:19, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
-::::Welcome to Conservapedia! [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:21, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
-Originality is inherently conservative, while liberals tend to copy ... and mock.  Jesus was an original; his detractors mocked Him.  Fosbury was an original; his detractors mocked him.  Edison was conservative, and I can't think of anything Buffett did that was truly original.  The US Constitution was original and innovative.  Etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
-== Chicken, Pitcher and Crow ==
-I added this one, a retelling of Aesop's "The Pitcher and the Crow" with the addition of a liberal chicken who does nothing but complain to contrast with the innovative and hardworking crow. I hope this fits along with others, and that it is o.k. to retell a classic story. Aesop's work is in the public domain and this version is my own work. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 20:42, 15 January 2012 (EST)
-== Objection to $40 parable ==
-NOTE:  this seems to conflict with what Jesus himself taught in the parable of the lost coin: [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A8-10&version=DRA] [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:13, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
-:Several of Jesus's parables identify human weakness to prove a different point, such as His parable about the unfair judge and also the one about the unscrupulous servant.  Jesus isn't praising the failure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 7 June 2013 (EDT)
-== Drowning Man, redux ==
-I think the parable as written actually supports liberals who want a welfare state.  Much as it is worthless to throw a line and make a distressed swimmer swim 50 yards (if they were able to swim such a distance, they would not be distressed), liberals would similarly find it worthless to let a homeless person or someone in poverty make a living without any government support.  There is a version found at [[Conservative humor]], which I think would be a good place for self-deprecating jokes like the version of the drowning man found there.  I removed it because I don't think that was what was intended, but it's the only sensible moral I can glean (taking Responding to Emergencies in high school does kind of spoil me...).  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 19:17, 1 March 2014 (EST)
-== Did the Conservative Conference actually happen? ==
-It's written like a real event, but I can't find any record of it. If it's real, could someone add a source? If not, could someone add a disclaimer saying "this is just a story"? --[[User:HJG|HJG]] ([[User talk:HJG|talk]]) 09:10, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative parables"

Revision as of 21:11, October 11, 2017

Navigation menu

Search