User talk:Gaytan

Christian communism discussion
Sadly, the practice of using wikipedia Talk pages for off-topic discussion (which includes talking about your personal opinions regarding the subject of an article) is frowned upon. But I do enjoy our conversation, and I wish we could continue it. Should we just talk here, or over email? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 06:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is OK to continue our conversation here, than that will do just fine. I will get some history on the discussion to post here. (Gaytan 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * OK. I pasted just some of the history of this discussion.  We can continue from the point where JK the unwise got involved. (Gaytan 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

A copied portion of the Christian communism Discussion, previously under the heading "This is... uggh.."
Okay, first off we need to lay out (a concise outline or list would be good) the problems and conflicts involving this article. Biblical support for both viewpoints needs to be clearly established, and the particular political/religious goals of Christian Communism and regular Marxism need to be clarified.


 * Agreed. That is what I was asking for from the beginning. Because clearly now, we both have our biases; you will try to show how Communism compliments Christianity and I will fight to show how Communism frustrates Christianity. But the idea to clearly express both sides here and to methodically go through to show the differences and similarities between the two philosophies will definitely raise the calibur of this article. (Gaytan 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

And just to set the record straight Gaytan, though the idea of a Christian Socialist/Communist is probably an oxymoron to you, they are out there, they read their Bibles, and they have just as much faith in Christ as any other Christian. If people would take their heads out of their butts once in a while, maybe they'd see that God, in fact, does NOT command 'Thou shalt be a conservative.', but that he commands us to give up our worldly possessions, to not repay evil with evil, and to help widows and orphans, as THAT is true and pure religion. Have you ever bothered to think that maybe God doesn't approve of Donald Trump stuffing his pockets with cash every five minutes, or that maybe, just MAYBE, socialism/communism doesn't even have to involve an overpowering state? Isn't the excessive patriotism in the US just as large a distraction from God as it was in Soviet Russia?


 * Just like a good socialist. Water down religion to summarize it in one short sentance. I am sorry, but there is simply much more to religion than what you included in your brief sentance.  Typical of a socialist is to try to neglect 99.9% of the Bible and say that God is simply pure Love.  Do the socialist Bibles just throw out all the New Testament references to the JUSTICE, WRATH, and VENGEANCE of God?  What about Hell and the "gnashing of teeth" that will be heard from those poor souls who partake of God's wrath?  What about the Second Coming, where Christ will burn the wicked into stubble as described in the Book of Revelation?  What about the poor souls that God struck dead when they knowingly broke His laws?  Sure God is Love, but he does not neglect His Justice; He perfects His Mercy through the use of Justice and vice versa.  Mercy cannot overpower Justice nor can Justice overpower Mercy. Your Bible must have conveniently left these parts out, huh? (Gaytan 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

But anyway. Let's just set down what our goals are, and try to work on some sort of compromise.


 * I assume that this last post was made by Mihnea Tudoreanu or is it Nikodemos now? This is confusing; let's try keeping one name, huh? (Gaytan 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC))


 * No, I did not write that post. When I make comments I sign them. (though my username did change, true enough; I do mention this change in my signature) I would also never throw around empty insults or generalizations like that. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What?! How can you make such a sweeping attack on conservatism with crude generalities and NOT expect a rebuttal? Are you serious?  "Take their heads out of their butts" you say?  Do we have to resort to name-calling now? I never said that all conservatives are saints.  Of course, it is a wide spectrum and the right has its loons as well.  But looking at well established goals of both sides, I believe conservatives line up much closer to being a friend of religion in general than do socialists. Instead of brushing all conservatives off with one broad stroke, how about some clear cut ISSUES to highlight that show conservatives are an enemy to Christianity?  Not very many.  You may find some individual, so-called conservatives like Donald Trump who may be abusing the system, filthy rich, and neglecting the poor. But even these conservatives are not very conservative in that they only use conservatism for its support of business.  These conservatives are only fiscally conservative but definitely not socially conservative.  But for the most part, filthy rich individuals are usually entertainers, movie stars, pop stars, sports stars or other celebrities; all of which are very socialistic, both fiscally and socially.  Most conservatives are hard working folks and are both fiscally and socially conservative.  Please name one rich, social conservative abusing the system and neglecting the poor?  Not very many.  You, and many other socialists, always depict conservatives as rich, stingy, hypocrites who only wish to build their wealth off of the poor working class.  Social conservatives are completely against this.  A real conservative is one who is both fiscally AND socially conservative.  It is not enough to be fiscally conservative only.  So looking at U.S. politics, there really is no conservative party per se, since the Republican party is losing its social conservative step by allowing it to be diminished by for "filthy lucre's" sake.  But getting back to the topic, what truly conservative goal is out of step with Christianity or religion in general?  I can't think of one myself.  Could you?
 * That depends on how you define "truly conservative", of course, but I would say that fiscal conservatism is a great enemy of religion and Christianity in particular (though an insidious and often overlooked one). Social conservatism is an ally of religion and morality, but it would be far more effective in its goals if it abandoned fiscal conservatism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now let's turn the table, how many clear cut issues are there of socialists, past and present, which anatagonize religion or are an enemy to all religions, with Christianity currently in it's noose? Do you need me to name a few?
 * Perhaps I should note that the first modern socialists (namely Robert Owen and the Comte de Saint-Simon in the early 1800s) were devout Christians and based their socialism on Christian principles. It was only later, in the second half of the 19th century, that secularism prevailed within the socialist movement. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A few that I mentioned above are: that government should expand public education to completely rid the country of private education and thereby reducing religion's role in society; that the income tax should be more like that of European countries, in order to redistribute wealth by force without regard to Christianity's free will; that healthcare should be universally provided by the government, as in Europe, again imposing on an individual's God-given right of free will; that marriage should be defined by the government without regard to religion; that government should have more authority than parents over children without regard to the religious beliefs of parents; that government welfare programs should be expanded, again, free will is trampled upon and the poor are locked into perpetual poverty; that college admissions should continue considering race/ethnicity of applicants in order to more equally represent all ethnic groups while simultaneously de-emphasizing academic ability, thus minorities are made superior to whites, effectively neglecting the Christian idea that God made all men equal; the planned overthrow of the free market in order completely extinguish free will and tha ability for man to "reap what he sows" as in the case of the California electricity crisis; in public schools, God and the Creation have been completely brushed aside for the more intellectual and politically correct theory of evolution; the known socialist group in the U.S., the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, consistently attacks religious morality and Christianity by removing Judao-Christian symbols from historical government buildings, removing crosses from war memorials, defending child pornographers and child molesters, and supporting pornagraphy.    (Gaytan 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC))
 * We have already discussed free will extensively above, but you know what I'm starting to wonder? How come you defend the freedom to be immoral by hoarding money, living in luxury and not helping the poor (it is apparently your "God-given right" to be uncaring, selfish and greedy; strange how Jesus never mentioned this) - but not the freedom to be immoral by watching and promoting pornography, having sexual intercourse with complete strangers in public, or molesting children? Free will cannot apply selectively to some immoral activities but not others. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And also, not all socialists agree with each other; Christian anarchism advocates abolishing the state completely, this would be most likely replaced with a form of other - a gift economy. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So it looks like we all (Natalinasmpf, Nikodemos and myself) agree (I think) that social conservatism is in fact supportive of religion, morality, etc. Where we disagree is fiscal conservatism: I believe this is necessary for Christianity due to the Free Will argument; you can't force someone to give to the poor, sick, or the orphaned no matter how you try to justify it.  You both seem to disagree with that.  I offer you these words:
 * 1. But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:6-7)
 * This says that you should give out of generosity and love; you should not feel sad or resentful that you are helping others. On the contrary, you should feel cheerful in sharing. Precisely what communists want. Keep in mind that a communist society does not involve forcibly taking things from people and giving them to others; rather, it involves the abolition of private property - it involves everyone sharing things with everyone else. Not grudgingly, but willingly. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. (1 Peter 4:8-9)
 * Same as above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:2-4)
 * I'm seeing a pattern here. You do not seem to realize that communism wants people to share things willingly. Let me make an analogy with another sin that we often mention: murder. We have laws in place against murder, but those laws are not the only thing stopping people from going on a murderous rampage. Most people willingly choose not to murder. The laws are in place to protect this majority from a small minority who do not willingly choose to respect others' lives. If the majority of people wanted to murder, laws would probably not be enough to stop them anyway, and society would break down. In a communist society, most people share things willingly, and laws on communal property are only in place to protect this majority from a small minority who wish to hoard things and keep them to themselves. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. And they with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of the LORD, by the hand of Jehiel the Gershonite. Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy. (1 Chronicles 29:8-9)
 * 5. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. (Exodus 25:1-2) God wants offering to be willfully given; otherwise he doesn't want nothing at all.
 * 6. Elsewhere it has been said "if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God."
 * 4-6: Again, see above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all just like most parents with their kids. All parents wish their kids would just do the right things on their own, without being forced to do it.  Sometimes, parents get fed up, and won't even accept what a child does unless it was done willfully.  So it is with our Father in Heaven.  Jesus taught that laws and punishment were both necessary, which neither of you seem to understand.  In all of His teachings and parables, there are always consequences for someone making a decision contrary to that which is honest, good, or loving.  Also, I NEVER HAVE SAID ANYTHING TO PROMOTE OR DEFEND THE LIFESTYLE OF "HOARDING MONEY" as Nikodemos contends.  Clearly from my posts in this discussion, you should know that.  I have said Republicans in the USA are losing their social conservativism and their supporters due to their love of "filthy lucre" (1 Timothy Chapter 3).  I am treating all sin alike: God’s plan considers man’s free will to be sacred.  This means man’s free will to choose to do anything, good or evil.  If it’s evil you are talking about, then “hoarding money” and failing to give to the poor is clearly evil, just as is rape or murder.  That’s not too say that all evil is counted equally before God, of course.  Some things are worse than others in God’s eyes.  Just check out Matthew 12:31; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 22:38; Matthew 23:23; John 19:11; Exodus 32:31;compare Exodus 21:16 to Exodus 22:1.  So if you wish to debate, do so truthfully.  Counter the issues I raise, don’t just attack by emotion.  I have answered your issues, how about answering mine?  Just like a socialist though, they never do debate an issue head on, they always have to sidestep the real issue and then criticize conservatives by appealing to emotions. (Gaytan 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Must you always end your comments with an ad hominem attack on socialists or communists? If anyone is engaging in unethical debate tactics here, that is you. I do not recall ever making an appeal to emotions. I am making a very simple point: You say that "hoarding money and failing to give to the poor is clearly evil, just as is rape or murder". I completely agree, and could not have said it better myself. But, in that case, why do you support laws against rape and murder, but not laws against hoarding money and failing to give to the poor? God clearly wants people to be generous and share their posessions willingly, but He also wants them to refrain from murder and rape willingly. This does not mean that He opposes the establishment of laws to encourage moral behaviour and condemn certain sins. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * JK the unwise has justifiably asked us to continue this debate elsewhere. But before this debate closes here, let it be defined that an ad hominem attack is one that appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect or is marked by attacking an opponent's character rather than by answering to the contentions made.  I leave this  to the judgement of the unbiased reader of this discussion.  Who is using ad hominem attacks here?  Who has made any attempt whatsoever to support their contentions in this discussion?  Who has appealed to the audience's feelings rather than their intellect?  Who has directly attacked their opponent's character rather than answering to the contentions made?  That's all for now. (Gaytan 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Rather then debating whether the scriptures support communism you should document what others have said about them. This article should firstly be about the ideas and practices of "Christian communists" (with appropreate references) and secondly about the controvercy around those ideas (with appropreate references), as they are certianly not the mainstream current in the Christian movement. So please take your debate to the appropreate discusion forum and concentrate here on documenting the Christian communist movement. --JK the unwise 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not trying to get our own thoughts and analyses included in the article, JK, we're only discussing them on this Talk page. But you are right, of course, that Talk pages are supposed to be used for discussing how to improve the article, not debating the article's subject. With that in mind, I believe we should try to find ways to expand the Brief History and Christian communists sections, as they are currently stubs. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A Continued Discussion of Christian communism (continues from discussion above )
Just like a communist; you have yet to respond to any one of my contentions. But yes, my comments always end with an attack of communism/socialism, but they are not ad hominem attacks; I attack with the truth, using biblical support. With the Bible, I show why I believe that communism is evil; ad hominem attacks use nothing but emotion for their support with no reason or intellect to back them up. You attack character rather than responding to the contentions I have made. Therefore your attack of me and other capitalists defending “the freedom to be immoral by hoarding money, living in luxury and not helping the poor” is clearly an ad hominem attack. You are playing to the emotions of the poor, and the rich and middle class who will put up with your communist ideas, and fail to support your argument with any reason or intellect; it’s all based on emotion. If we take the Bible as truth, then the ideas it advocates are not ad hominem, since they are supported by the reason and intellect of God (the Bible). Thus, my attacks are not based on an appeal to emotions as yours have been. You have failed to provide any biblical references showing that Jesus or the Apostles advocated the limiting of free will by banning the ability to become rich. You have only supported this claim with emotional statements.

You know what I am starting to believe about you, Nikodemos? I believe you know very little about the Bible, or any other scripture for that matter, and yet are trying to show how un-Christian-like I, and many others Christians really are. I will bet that the only Biblical references you can think of are those that support you communist agenda somehow. Just like the Christian communists try to say that ancient Christians were really communists themselves; as if Jesus and the Apostles entire Gospel revolved around communism. I mentioned some scriptures about God’s wrath, justice, and judgment. Have you ever bothered to look into any of these? Have you ever noted that God does punish people every once and a while? Have you forgotten that the wicked will be destroyed in their entirety at the Second Coming of Christ? How does this all fit into the Christian communist theology? Where is the equality for the wicked? Will the wicked take Jesus to a temporal court, before a good communist judge with a pony tail, for His blatant discrimination? Is this an ad hominem attack on Nikodemos? No, I have Biblical references for anyone who wants them, so I if you want them Nikodemos, I can list them if you will truly look into them, if not, why bother? If you want to preach, please make sure you know what you are talking about (biblically) and live the life the Bible recommends. Otherwise you will look just like the hypocritical leftists in the USA who try to preach about equality, charity, peace, and caring for the poor, the sick, and the afflicted yet they legalize sodomy, they destroy marriage and mock God with homosexuality, they kill unborn, third-trimester infants yet they seek to save the lives of murderers, they fight to shorten prison terms of child molesters, they teach kids how to put condoms on cucumbers yet they will not allow an after-school Bible club on public school property, the list goes on and on. Do they have any ground to stand on when they wish to preach to social conservatives about morality? I don't think so. More info needed? See Websites below:


 * Jessica's Law Official site
 * Condom's on Cucumbers?
 * Bible Club Denied School Display

(Gaytan 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * As far as I can see, you appear to be saying that some liberals/left-wingers support homosexuality, same-sex marriage, partial birth abortion, and lesser penalties for some crimes. This is perfectly true. So? How exactly do the actions of some liberals or socialists enable you to condemn all liberals or socialists? Hypocrites may advocate good things and bad things at the same time. You point out the bad things and wish to throw out the good along with them. That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, I preach about equality, charity, peace, and caring for the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. At the same time, I am pro-life, I believe that sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin that should be discouraged, I certainly support maximum jail terms for child molesters, and I believe there should be publicly-funded religious schools. You are raving against the atheist left, but none of that applies to members of the religious left such as myself. You are not arguing against socialism or communism; instead, you appear to be arguing against other views held by the majority of socialists and communists. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am chastizing all socialists with a broad brush; I could believe that there are religious socialists (like you) who loathe the left's attempt to implement these insane practices into Western government. But I still cannot agree that there is such a thing, TODAY, as a religious communist.  It is an oxymoron by my definition (see more on my definition of communism below).  Perhaps centuries ago, religious communism was a viable practice, but it is impossible to be as such TODAY.  Hey, but it appears I may have won a small battle here; you agree then that "the majority of socialists and communists" hold anti-family and anti-religious views?  (Gaytan 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

I have also proven that in the USA, the liberal/socialist assault on religion is a reality; this is not ad hominem, I have documented cases above in the USA to show how the communist agenda has infiltrated the liberal parties of America. Communists attack religion and family values in general, so if anyone claims to be a social conservative, it would be an oxymoron for them to claim to be some kind of a religious communist. If you want evidence of this just look at Frederick Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” To communists, everything is about property and how capitalists abuse others by their ownership of property. Engels argued that monogamous relationships are simply a creation of capitalists. For him, traditional relationships between men and women were nothing short of sexual orgies with no commitment whatsoever. To him, the communist utopia would eventually get the world back on track by practicing this type of relationship. Hey if it was good enough for caveman it’s good enough for everyone today, right? Whatever! If this is not an attack of religion, morals, and family values then I don’t know what is. Engels was one crazy guy, to him everything boiled down to property; he completely bypassed morality. And to say you are a Christian communist, lines you up squarely behind him and is just another attack on Christianity in general. And Nikodemos, you don't just stand behind these communists, you defend them and fight for their anti-God agenda. (Gaytan 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Communists did not invent atheism. And, once again, you do not seem to understand that there is no logical need for a communist to be an atheist; there is no logical need for a communist to agree with everything that every other communist ever said. Indeed, it would be impossible to agree with everything every communist ever said, because there are important points of disagreement within the communist movement. To say you are a communist means you support the common ownership of all property. Nothing more, nothing less. You could be pro-life or pro-choice, you could be a Christian or an atheist, homosexual or heterosexual, a family man or a playboy. Those things have nothing to do with your support of, or opposition to, communism. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; communism did not invent atheism -- but it did popularize it in our time and age. Because of communism, atheism has replaced the religious governments of the 19th century.  Most of the Western world was led by religious goverments (this is not to say that they were perfect) and because of the influence of communism, religious beliefs and morals have nearly been completely removed from public life in the West.  While communism did not completely develop and take over in Europe, its philosophy has nevertheless penetrated it so much so, that socialist governments dot the entire European continent.  But I am beginning to understand your point of view about a communist not necessarily having to be an atheist.  But from my view, the history of organized communism (from the 19th century to the present) has been atheistic, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong-il, etc. As such, I define today's communism by the light of communism history.  While there may have been many people who practiced forms of communism prior to Marx, he is the one who popularized it; he is the first to have defined it.  And all those who attempted to establish communist governments afterwards, did it bu building upon the foundation Marx esablished.  Whether you like this or not, most of the world, views communism as atheistic.  And this because of its own documented history.  This may be another disagreement we have; that is what time period of the world's history is being used to define communism?  I tend to define it from the time period of the 19th century to the present, where others may define it from the biblical times to pre-19th century period.  Along these lines you could define communism as atheistic or not.  If you attempt to define communism from biblical time to the present, thereby encompassing all of human history, then I guess you could say that a communist doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist.  So what time period are we going to stick by to define communism?  Perhaps this should be discussed in the Christian communism article.(Gaytan 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC))


 * This is why I cannot understand how someone who is religious can claim to be a communist, since according to my definition, a prequisite to be a communist is to be an atheist. (Gaytan 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Incidentally, you might want to read the article on socialism and sexual orientation. It happens to be POV right now, because (1) it puts too much emphasis on socialist opposition to homosexuality, and (2) it makes that opposition look like a bad thing, but, still, it might contain information you will find useful. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting article. It seems that homosexuality has been looking for a political home the last couple centuries and has just recently found it in the politics of today's liberalism of the west. (Gaytan 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Free Will and Fiscal Liberalism
From the copied Christian communism discussion found above, I noted how Christian communists and leftists in the USA and Europe try to FORCE (infringement of individual free will) their respective citizens to give to the poor and needy through taxation. I provided several scriptural verses supporting the idea that Christians are called to give to the poor and needy out of pure love and should not be forced to do it, thereby causing the giver to do it grudgingly (fiscal liberalism). Your response to this is that
 * "you should give out of generosity and love; you should not feel sad or resentful that you are helping others. On the contrary, you should feel cheerful in sharing. Precisely what communists want. Keep in mind that a communist society does not involve forcibly taking things from people and giving them to others; rather, it involves the abolition of private property - it involves everyone sharing things with everyone else. Not grudgingly, but willingly."

You say communists want people to be cheerful givers. But how can this be possible if laws are forcing them to give???? What communists want and what they actually cause are completely different things. They claim that they want people to give cheerfully yet they cause people to give grudgingly due to the laws they impose on them. Again, how can anyone possibly give cheerfully if laws are created requiring them to give????

You then come to the point of the necessity of such laws by saying the following,
 * "You do not seem to realize that communism wants people to share things willingly. Let me make an analogy with another sin that we often mention: murder. We have laws in place against murder, but those laws are not the only thing stopping people from going on a murderous rampage. Most people willingly choose not to murder. The laws are in place to protect this majority from a small minority who do not willingly choose to respect others' lives. If the majority of people wanted to murder, laws would probably not be enough to stop them anyway, and society would break down. In a communist society, most people share things willingly, and laws on communal property are only in place to protect this majority from a small minority who wish to hoard things and keep them to themselves"

You must be careful with you language. You should have said, "In an ideal communist society, which has yet to exist, most people will share things willingly". Your ideal communist society has never existed and shall never exist. Your analogy to murder is not accurate. I stated earlier that "hoarding money and failing to give to the poor is clearly evil, just as is rape or murder", but that was not meant to say that hoarding money and failing to provide to the poor was equally as evil as rape or murder. There are many sins, some more serious than others. Just look at all the governments of developed countries, their laws all prove that this is true. Look at the Bible and you will see that this was always true (if you disagree, I can then go into the biblical reference for you). The Old Testament people basically live by the "eye for an eye, and the tooth for a tooth" law. That clearly shows that the severity of sins was not all equal. If you murdered someone, you were put to death. If you stole a camel, you had to repay a camel (or a few camels). More examples can be given. But there were also sexual sins that were clearly considered just as evil as murder such as homosexuality, incest, adultery, etc. Jesus also taught that men would sow what they reap. That is, men would be compensated (blessed or cursed) depending on the good or evil they did. So should our governments create laws. If a man murders, he should be put to death (please let's not argue the death penalty). I a man rapes, he should be given a severe punishment, perhaps life in prison since the person he raped will be negatively affected for the rest of their lives. If a man robs, he should pay back what he stole and then some. Men should be punished in a way that would adequately atone for the sin he committed. Communism does not do this. Communism would forcefully take away man's property and require him to give of his surplus to the poor. Laws would require men to do this in a communist society. What would the punishment be for not obeying these laws? Would it be appropriate according to the severity of his crime? I doubt it. The so-called communist states murdered and terrorized capitalists. What kind of punishment would an ideal communist state hand out for this? If it is not severe enough, the people would not feel obliged to obey; if it is too severe, the punishment would definitely not fit the crime. Therefore the ideal communists would be stuck. He will find that his philosophy cannot be applied in reality. This is a major reason why an ideal communist government has yet to be created and this is why ideal communists will find that their ideas will not flourish. (Secondly, and probably should be argued as another sub-topic, communism dangerously concentrates power, leaving men to be checked only by their conscience. This leads to the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely.")  (Gaytan 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) Jesus made no law regarding all to give to the poor. The Bible does teach that we should give but it was never forced on anyone. Jesus did encourage His followers to give cheerfully and He set the example of course. This is what countries should do. Citizens should be encouraged to give, not required to. And this is what capitalism does; religious groups are abundantly available for people to give, the government should just stay out of this business. In the USA, this concept is clearly practiced and can be verified. Many of the poor and needy, nationally and internationally, are cared for by churches. The USA was recently criticized by the world for not giving nearly enough per capita in foriegn aid, as found through a study. While this is true, private donations and military assistance were not accounted for in that study. If we look at simply private donations to foriegn causes, the Americans give substantially more per capita than most of the developed world. Now add the cost of our military support of foriegn countries in various conflicts throughout the world, and I sincerely believe Americans are very charitable. Therefore governments should encourage their citizens to give cheerfully, on their own free will. Religion is the only way to do this. Encourage citizens to participate in religous groups. That's the way Jesus did it. He did not require Rome to legislate giving to the poor! He encouraged His followers to cheerfully give; He most definitely did not require (or force) all Jews to give based on His teachings. Communists would force all citizens in their jurisdiction to give, whether they are Christian, Atheist, Jew, or Muslim. They would also force everyone to give to people who are addicted to welfare and have never worked a day in their lives. Jesus expects us to give cheerfully to the needy, but He does not expect us to give to those who are known to abuse generosity (Proverbs 6:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:10; Matthew 25:14-30; 2 Corinthians 9:6). Interesting, the Matthew parable even shows Jesus' approbation of a capitalistic venture! (Gaytan 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I salute you, Gaytan! Keep up the excellent work! ranch@cds1.net 69.239.225.126 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Thomas Dobson

Benjamin Franklin
From reading his autobiography, it seems Ben Franklin was indeed Presbyterian, if only in name. According to Franklin, "Tho' I seldom attended any Public Worship, I had still an Opinion of its Propriety, and of its Utility when rightly conducted, and I regularly paid my annual Subscription for the Support of the only Presbyterian Minister or Meeting we had in Philadelphia. (my emphasis...) From my understanding of religious sociology of the era, you didn't pay a subscription fee for a church unless you subscribed to the belief system.  Of course, Franklin underlines some differences of opinion that he had with the established institution, but nothing so major to lead me to believe that he was not willing, at least in name, to associate himself with Presbyterian belief and values.  But I am no expert.  Otherwise, very well written section. Locriani 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Locriani - This is a great reference; we should try to carefully incorporate it into the Benjamin Franklin article in a way that it is not too offending to some Wikipedians who adamantly believe the Founders were all Deists (Atheists today use the code word --Deist-- to make the Founders' beliefs appear closer to Atheism than to Christianity - a clear fabrication of course). Go ahead and take the first shot at getting this reference into the article.  Be sure to include a good citation on the source.  Also try to place it into the Religious views section into the Chronological order that it currently follows. Gaytan 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to do with some of the Founding Fathers' articles, like Benajamin Frankin's, is to show that these men were much more than Deists, but not quite Fundamentalists Christians either. Most of these men believed in God and in seeking His guidance daily, but they were simply appalled at the manner in which the Christian priests were so corruptedly involved with various governments and the superstitions they perpetuated among the general masses which kept them stricly under their control.  This is why so many of the Founding Fathers fit in so well with Protestantism which opened the doors to God so that communication with God could be achieved directly by the people and no longer have the necessity of an intermediary, corrupt priest (as many of the Fathers believed) between them and God. Yet most of the Founders carefully and purposefully failed to endorse any one religion, easily understandable after considering their knowledge and experience with tyrannical church leaders.  They did not want any one in America's future to be able to argue something akin to, "Well, Washington, Adams, Monroe and the others were Presbyterians therefore America should adopt the Presbyterian Church as the Official Church of USA." They were terrified of their experience and history with the Church of England on the general public and, as can be seen in all of their writings, their primary goal was to figure out how to prevent any type of tyrannical government from taking over.  To them all tyrannies were evil: left wing, right wing, theocracy or whatever.  It was all the same to them.  This, however, does not make them absolutely faithless.  Gaytan 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, i see. I am now working on some additions and expansions to your Religious Beliefs section, but it may take a while (architorture student...)  Excellent work, definitely...  Denial of our founding father's religious beliefs seems a little extreme, however mainstream it is now, i am glad that at least one other person is trying to update these views. Locriani 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and religion
Apparently quoting Lincoln on his religious beliefs qualifies as 2007-style POV. I've restored your edit, but if you want it to stay, you're going to have to defend it against removal by another editor. Rklawton 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that there are many editors who really don't appreciate primary source material (quotes from letters, speeches, etc.). I have had a very difficult time with several editors who claim my edits are POV.  Wiki policy on primary source quotations only specify that primary source material should not be interpreted by Wiki editors.  I believe if we stick to our guns and only include the quotes without any interpretation, we should be OK.  Interpretation is not really necessary anyways, the American Founding Fathers especially are very clear on their view of religion.  But we have some atheists masquerading as deists on wiki, and so anything that makes the Founders look as if they were remotely religious is quickly removed and labeled as POV.  We who include quotes that show that these men held God in great respect, have an uphill battle. Gaytan 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty seeing how including the views of the subject of the article without interpretation could possibly be described as POV or OR. If you have difficulty in future adding such material, please let me know and I'll look into it. WJBscribe 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that RJ is thinking of the following from WP:OR in his objections. However, I think everyone should read WP:OR and explain how/where their position satisfies a particular point therein:
 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. Rklawton 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will admit that when I first began editing on Wikipedia, I was unaware that primary sources could be viewed as oringinal research. Since Rjensen began deleting my edits, our disputes resulted in him directing me to the WP:OR page.  I have since been very careful in adding primary sources to articles by assuring that I made no interpretation of the primary source.  Which is exactly what I did on the Lincoln article.  But Rjensen really has some serious prejudice against anyone of faith, in general.  Any attempt to shed some light on the Founders' religious beliefs really bothers Rjensen, especially since there is so much primary source material that negates any attempt to portray these hisotrical figures as atheists.  Rjensen and JimWae really do not appreciate my edits and always come back to that idea of primary source interpretations constituting original research. Just take a look at the edit history of the religious sections on the following articles and you will find that the editors mentioned above are clearly POV in their views by blatantly deleting my edits or not including critical primary sources: George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.  Lastly, what would you think about editors who repeatedly source their edits to sites such as www.positiveatheism.org?  POV?  Don't you think? Gaytan 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RJ is famous for his POV edits - and he's been blocked eight times for his copious reversions. If you want to prevail, though, you'll need to follow my suggestion.  To wit:  with all the available source material, there's bound to be some top tier scholarly work that addresses the issue.  Not all of it is consistent - academicians love to argue, but you're certainly encouraged to present another side of this top-level research.  That sort of thing is highly encouraged here.  Rklawton 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. The thing is that Rjensen will dismiss all authors who point out that the American Founders, and other great figures in history, were even remotely, spiritual, prayerful, or God-fearing men. You say I should cite "top tier scholarly work"...  Well RJ dismisses all my authors as unreliable, right-wing, religious extremists.  We will need some third party to decide what authors should be considered "top tier scholarly work" because Rjensen and I will likely not agree when it comes down to this issue.  Additionally, let me tell you, I really believe that much of the material used by these anti-religious Wiki editors, as found on this Atheist Site, is definitely not "top tier scholarly work".  But you don't see me deleting all material referenced to that website, although much of it really should be. Gaytan 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit of an old issue I know, but if you are still having problems with this, positiveatheism hardly sounds or looks like a reliable source and it would probably be acceptable to tag or simply removing any statement sourced solely to it. If you are having disputes over what constitutes a reliable source, try WP:RS/N. In general terms, it may be best to rely on peer-reviewed journals as much as possible and avoid books or newspaper articles regardless of the credentials of the authors. For something like the religious beliefs of former American presidents, I presume there is a fair amount of content in peer reviewed journals Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti Canadian
Is there a reason why you are anti Canadian? Some of your comments are very anti Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hozombel (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You would have to point this out to me since I have no idea what you are talking about. Gaytan (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with being an atheist
There's no proof there is a god and people believe diffrent things than you do get over it. leave it to a right wing religious nut case to use atheism in the same category as oppressor and despot i'm not a communist but karl marx never killed anyone and unlike joseph smith he wasn't a racist who believed all black people were evil. and it does seem religion is the opium of the masses if it can make someone homophobic anti civil liberties and wanting to make the country a theocracy ( so much for protecting the constituition eh hypocrite?) then it's a drug that makes people stupid. if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god exists (and all doubt is reasonable) then leave him out of politics there's so many cooloer imaginary friends. (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.79.238 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The demonstration of poor historical knowledge, simplistic and hateful logic, let alone horrifying grammer and punctuation, illustrated above basically speaks for itself.  No further comment needed. Gaytan (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to be careful to spell grammar correctly when criticising someone for their English, especially when you have no idea if English is their first language. (Yes the IP looks up to the US, it doesn't mean English is their first language.) P.S. Whatever the other flaws in the comment, criticising or denigrating it simply because the author may not have as good a standard of English as you speaks more of you then of them. While the comment had nothing to do with wikipedia, if it had, ignoring it for that reason would be unacceptable so I suggest you think more carefully in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too harsh? Yes, you are right Nil Einne.  I definitely could have been more civilized.  But hey, I am human, imperfect, and get a little frustrated when folks like myself are referred to as "right wing religious nut case[s]" and when my own faith is trampled upon, as did the unsigned user above. That type of thing is very offensive, you must admit.  "Grammar" rather than "grammer", correct. Gaytan (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

asking for a reference
When you call a particular fact unreferenced like you did here and several times in the discussion at Talk:United_States_public_debt, it would be polite to notify the content creator of the discussion. Also, the source material is referenced (and even tabulated) on the image's page. Pdbailey (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I checked out the link and I still can't figure it out.  More details please! Gaytan (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary that I linked to you wrote, "Graphs depicting skewed total debt removed." also, in the discussion you wrote, "For now I will remove this blatant yet disguised POV from the article. Blatant POV has no place in Wikipedia. We should not wait for a correction. Let the graphs be re-inserted after the corrections have been made." Here, it would have been nice for you to give me a heads up that you had made this deletion. Pdbailey (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I have found what your problem is, maybe we can work something out. I am sorry for not notifying you about my removal of your graph from United States public debt.  The graph is clearly skewed in the data it uses to report debt figures from the late 1990s.  I need to validate this data and so far, every reference I have lookes at (including the ones you report on the graph's page) shows that your data is skewed.  Your graph shows a drop in the federal debt (in $) in the late 1990s.  Based on references which report these numbers, the federal debt (in $) has increased for many decades without one drop. Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page.  Gaytan (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:US Federal Debt(gross).JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:US Federal Debt(gross).JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted your removal
I have reverted your removal of sourced information at 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis. Please see the talk page for details Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)