text:
Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 1

Most members, particularly older members, of this group are apt to object to being referred to as "Protestants", saying that the church was not founded as a protest against anything, other than perhaps the domination of the present world by Satan. However, it certainly fits within the the historic context of Protestantism, growing as it did mainly out of Baptist- and Presbyterian-related reform movements. Rlquall, 10 June 04, 12:55

 * I'm not sure I'd say "most," but that is common. It could be correct to categorize us as "Protestants" if you take that to mean those who reject the Catholic religion.  I've sometimes billed myself as a "protestant against Protestants," too.  But I also tend to refer to the Protestant Church as a whole as a fallen religious organization. Jdavidb 16:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Someone, somewhere, is probably also going to object to the categorization of "Christian denominations," as one of the religious tenets of this group is that they are not a denomination and that denominationalism is sinful. Jdavidb 14:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Jehovah's Witnesses likewise dislike their movement being referred to as a "church", but it nonetheless shows up frequently as such in a discussion of religious groups, since it grew out of a purported study of the Bible, the book supposedly followed by Christian religious groups. C of C semantics don't carry much weight with non-members either.  Most non-C of C members are apt to refer to the pulpit minister of a C of C as a "pastor" even though that is NOT his title, and to the group as a whole as a "denomination", regardless of how stridently it rejects that status (and with some reason, as the trappings of a denomination such as conventions, world, national, and regional headquarters, and the like are generally absent. One of the objections to events such as the "Tulsa Workshop" is that they resemble, in many aspects, a convention.)

Recent changes
I'm going to mercilessly edit some of the recent changes. :) For one thing, the text made it clear that since the churches are autonomous, specific beliefs and practices vary.  The article attempts to list some things that are commonly taught or associated with the Church of Christ.  There is no need to add disclaimers to individual statements to say this.  I presume I'll be similarly mercilessly edited, and consensus will emerge. Jdavidb 20:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Churches of Christ generally do believe that denominationalism is sinful. Saying they believe it's a departure from the plan laid out in the Bible implies they believe it is sinful, as they believe departures from the Bible plan are sinful.  (Perhaps this should be spelled out more clearly.  Churches of Christ believe that tradition, councils, conventions, and local churches do not have the power to modify either Biblical theology or Biblical practice.)  Yes, this varies from church to church, but the article states that.  Yes, many churches are changing, but the article attempts to document those beliefs and practices that distinguish the Church of Christ from mainline Protestantism.

 * In some churches, elders do select the deacons. Some believe (probably without study) that this is the only Biblical way to do it.  I'll restore this, but state that it is only in some churches.

 * Unresolved: elders are generally selected by the congregation, but there's a significant minority who believe they are to be selected by the evangelist/preacher. Any ideas how to report this?  Probably needs more detail on the office of an elder (btw, the Wikipedia article on Bishop, last I checked, had an excellent explanation of the New Testament office of bishop).

 * Agree that elders generally do not perform baptisms. (Although maybe they should...)

 * Preachers definitely perform baptisms. Some of the less educated probably believe only preachers can perform baptisms.

 * Holidays: there are anti-holiday and pro-holiday churches in all regions. I doubt this varies by region.  Probably more by age.  To be honest, the anti-holiday sentiment has weakened so much over the last 50-100 years that it probably cannot truthfully be reported as a current doctrine, though many still hold to it.  Nevertheless, it's a distinctive doctrine the churches are still known for, even if they no longer hold to it (or hold to it only weakly).

 * "anti-cooperation" or "anti-" is a perjorative.

 * The Paden article mentioned under ICOC under Disputes Within the Church, is not really all that impartial. Plus I think that link really ought to be ICOC page, but that's a minor quibble.  There's a huge preponderance of non-CoC links on the CoC page though. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage in the Church of Christ
It is incorrect to say that the churches of Christ believe that divorce, without reason of adultery is not divorce in the eyes of God and is therefore adultery. This is a minority view held by some of the more extreme members of the church.

A more accurate statement reflecting the majority view is: Divorce, except for reasons of infidelity, is a sin which Jesus compares to adultery.

Because this is a strenuously debated issue, rather than a defining doctrine, I believe that it should be either corrected or deleted entirely.

 * I do not believe this "divorce is not adultery" opinion is a majority view. No lesser commentator than Wayne Jackson has written on the topic, an article published in the Introduction to Churches of Christ back in the 80s and reproduced all over the place online (http://www.thebible.net/introchurch/ch26.html).  His is certainly the viewpoint I am familiar with as well, not least of which because that's what many people read in their Bibles.  On the one hand we have the view of "the bible says..." and on the other we have the view of "what the bible really meant was...".  I think it better to leave as is, but say that this is not a universally held belief.  (And how can it be since the CoC are autonomous). 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ICOC links
There are 3 links out of ten devoted to the ICOC, but this is the article for the mainstream Churches of Christ. Since these two groups are often confused, I would like to have something to set these links apart. Otherwise, it seems excessive that 30% of the links are about another group. Jdavidb 19:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It is unnecessary and even more confusing to add so many ICOC links to a page dedicated to mainstream churches of Christ.  Both organizations consider themselves separate organizations.  However Joe User may visit this Wiki article thinking that it is all about ICOC, with all the links to ICOC websites. Ichabod 23:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baptism
I believe it might be helpful to add to this article an explanation of baptism as presented by Ferguson in his book, "The Church of Christ A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today" (Eerdmans) ... basically, Ferguson explains that generally speaking people in the Church of Christ (consciously or not) believe that they would answer the questions "How am I saved?" by "Grace" "Why am I saved?" because of my Faith "When am I saved?" when I am baptized. Do you'll think this would help people understand better where they are coming from?

 * I think that this would be a theologically fair exposistion of the views of the majority of this group.

Rlquall 05:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, this is an accurate and not emotionally charged way of stating it. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of an update
Capitalization needed to be standardized within the article. I realize that this is a contentious point; many feel that the capitalization of "Church" aquaints to surrendering to the idea that the body is another denomination. However, even though Wikipedia is by its very nature a collabrative effort, the outcome of each article should be stylistically consistent as if written by a single author. Rlquall 18:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Mainline" vs. "mainstream"
I realize that many will see this as even more of a minor quibble than the capitalization "issue". However, "mainline" has become something of a term of art referring to a specific group of major Protestant churches, and it would be wrong to associate the Churches of Christ with this group because it would be historically and semantically inaccurate. Therefore, I have amended it to the more generic "mainstream", which better signifies what is meant here in my opinion. Rlquall 18:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pepperdine
Is Pepperdine the best choice of an example here? I would think that Abeline, Harding, or Lipscomb would be more representative of the "mainstream" of belief. Many in the C of C "heartland" automatically suspect and disdain Pepperdine, admittedly in part just due to its California location, but also for its perceived (and sometimes real) "liberalism" by Church of Christ standards. Rlquall 17:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Would a good minor Wikiproject be "List of colleges and universities associated with the Churches of Christ?)

 * I have heard all three of the colleges you mention described as having liberal tendencies. ACU especially is condemned.  Harding might be the best middle-of-the-road example, but there are complaints even about it. 170.35.224.64 16:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal or conservative tendencies shouldn't play into this discussion. Rather, the willingness and promotion of the college itself as representative of Churches of Christ. Pepperdine has been much less willing in recent years to bill itself as an institution of the Churches of Christ, whereas Abilene Christian University, Oklahoma Chrisitan University, Harding University, and Lipscomb University are still the major colleges that outwardly claim association with the CoC, regardless of liberal or conservative leanings. --Soonercary 03:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Pepperdine University is religiously affiliated with the Churches of Christ
 * I found the above quote on the "About Pepperdine" page of their website. I was a little skeptical about the statement that Pepperdine has been stepping away from association with the CoC.  I feel that since Pepperdine is listed both on its wikipedia entry and its website as being affiliated with the CoC then it is perfectly appropriate to include it in this article.  Especially since it is the one CoC affliated university that is most noted outside the CoC. Kablamo2007 20:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, Pepp is just as CoC as ACU, but the schools list has been moved to a separate article, so it's moot here. Danlovejoy 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Florida College in Temple Terrace, Florida should be included in the list of colleges. Although it is not a seminary, it does have a bibilcal studies department whose beliefs are most akin to those of the non-institutional side of the church.

Links to Individual Congregations
Links to individual CoC congregations' websites are unnecessary. There is potential for an overwhelming amount of links if this were allowed to continue. There are already links to website directories of CoCs in the article. Users should use those directories provided rather than link to individual congregations in the wiki article.

--Ichabod 14:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You are exactly correct.

--Rlquall 23:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sincerity?
I would appreciate the recent "editor" coming forward and identifying himself/herself. This sort of thing is unfortunate, even though what is expressed is exactly what the American Restoration Movement saw itself as being. But anonymous edits erasing hours of work by several persons strike me as being "un-Christian" in the extreme. Rlquall 23:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cleanup/npov
This article seems to take the CoC's claims as to its origins at face value; that is, that it is merely a restoration of early Christianity. While the CoC's view of itself should certainly be stated, there needs to be a section on the group's history -- who founded them, what were some of the religious trends and fashions prevelant at the time and place where the CoC was founded. Just giving the CoC's pov and not any more secular historical background makes this article NPOV, though I just put the "cleanup" tag on there to give people time to fix it. I am sick, and unable to write a good section on the history at this time; if no one else comes forward to do so soon, I'll need to put a NPOV tag up there. Zantastik 07:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the statements and links to the Restoration Movement serves this purpose. Otherwise, a "historical and modern origins" section could be added without really removing anything else. This could address Campbell, David Lipscomb, and Daniel Summer. What else is really needed? Carltonh 16:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I fixed it and I think it's pretty NPOV now, Carltonh. But I'm sure it could be better if you want to take a shot at it. Danlovejoy 03:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The history of the Church was sort-of in there at one time see Restoration Movement which is also a disputed topic becuase it deals with the American Stone/Campbell Restoration movement.  Some of the links provide good information on the history of the church - although many CoC members will dispute the history.

Cleaned up NPOV
I have NPOVed it. However, I am a member of this church, so a Gentile should probably edit me. ;-) And I'd like to say, while this article gets the facts straight, we're not as odd as we look. Danlovejoy 22:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hades?
"No intermediate locales in the afterlife between heaven and hell; Purgatory and limbo are seen as human creations, mentioned nowhere in scripture and unheard of for centuries after the completion of the New Testament."

I grew up in the church of Christ and was taught the doctrine of Hades - a places souls go after death to await judgment. Was anyone else taught this?

 * Absolutely, that there was such a place for souls between death and the Final Judgement, but that it was (based on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus) either already "heavenly" for the saved ("Paradise", as in the destintation of The Thief on the Cross, or "The Bosom of Abraham", from the above-mentioned parale) or, alternatively, "hellish" for the lost, meaning that the Final Judgement would be essentially a formality. What is meant here is that there is no ongoing intermediate realm after Judgement.  Rlquall 05:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Purgatory and Limbo per this discussion and other discussions I've had offline.

Removed Mark Smith Atheist Link
This site appears to be a personal crusade against the Church of Christ and Christianity in general rather than a rational critique of the sect's theology. Witness the URL - the Church is listed under "cults." I would encourage links to more even-handed and level-headed criticisms of the Church of Christ. Danlovejoy 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Seemed like a personal vendetta against the Church of Christ rather than any substantial critical offerings. Ichabod 02:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking the specific terminology even futher ...
... Should we include how that "you can't join the Church of Christ, you can only be added to it? This is huge to some, who will almost disfellowship someone who speaks of himself or someone else as having "joined" the church.  (Anyone know if this is an issue in any other group?)  Once I saw that list of unique phraseologies, it really brought back lots of memories.  Also, should it be noted how the insistance on this rather unique terminology is somewhat lessened among most younger members of urban and suburban "progressive" churches?  I am finding this to be increasingly the case.  I mut say that I have heard lots of talent among those unrobed choirs, the "Praise Teams", also in progressive suburban churches.  Does this trend merit mentioning?  Rlquall 02:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Go for it. This distinction of God "adding to the church" is important, and is one of the things I fervently agree with in standard COC doctrine. . Is "praise team" unique to the COC? I think it's a great development, but a pretty stupid neologism. Danlovejoy 22:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
An anonymous contributor came through and de-capitalized many of the instances of "Church of Christ." I reverted. I would contend that this is non-encyclopedic usage. No one outside of the Churches of Christ is going to understand this oddness, and it's explained in the article. In fact, most young people IN the church are not going to get it. Danlovejoy 22:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camp Yarnhill
I have removed the link to Camp Yarnill under /*See Also*/. It is not nearly as noteworthy as the other two "See Also" links there. It looks like a lovely place, but there are literally hundreds of Christian camps associated with the Churches of Christ. I could name a dozen off the top of my head. To link to just one seems inappropriate to me. Danlovejoy 15:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. One particular camp is not significant enough to have a link all by itself.  In lieu of linking to a specific Christian camp, perhaps someone should make a category of "Christian Camps associated with the Churches of Christ." -Ichabod 17:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Clarification
Perhaps a section for the (general) leanings of various Churches of Christ. i.e. Conservative = Gospel Advocate, Harding U. types, moderate to progressive =  ACU, Christian Chronicle types and finally those moving toward instruments / evangelical models (Max Lucado). Better section titles would be necessary, but it may clarify to the outsider what the differnces are in a more common language.

Secondly, thanks to everyone for cleaing up this entry.

Pspadaro 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be quite difficult to fully provide for all the different "leanings". Are we going to take notice of the Max King-related crowd of preterists?  The colleges themselves have undergone so many changes that frankly trying to classify streams by leanings akin to the colleges is like chasing the wind.  Classifying the different "leanings" by relation to the colleges also smacks of an indirect sort of denominationalism.  In talking to family, thirty years ago Harding might have been a bastion of conservative Churches of Christ life.  Nowadays Rochester College is quite a bit more strict than even Freed-Hardeman University.  Much can change as time passes...  Smk 23:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As I see it, there are four main groups that can be defined by belief and practice rather than by their affiliations. (I would never associate any one publication, congregation, or institution with the latter three groups, because someone would be offended)
 * * Non Institutional - obvious
 * * Traditional Conservatives - those that hold to every dot and tiddle of COC orthodoxy - doctrine of silence, closed fellowship, perfect attendance, great emphasis on works, preaching of "The Church" rather than Jesus.
 * * Moderates - Quietly questioning closed fellowship, Listen to Christian Contemporary Music, more willing to talk about the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit rather than "the church," greater emphasis on redemptive grace. May have videos and contemporary a cappella music in worship.
 * * Progressives - Open Fellowship, ecumenical practices, instrumental music used in worship or at alternate times in the building, drama and alternate worship practices, women in leadership roles & speaking in worship. Churches are almost indistinguishable from community churches.

 * There may be some smaller groups, but these are the four that I'm familiar with. Am I wrong? Danlovejoy 16:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I see four groups, but perhaps not the same classifications you have. :) Basing them on divisions in extending fellowship, I'd list:

 * * Ultra-conservative - one-cup, no Bible class, no located preacher, etc. May subscribe to a subset of these doctrines
 * * Non-institutional - distinguishable based on role of individual vs. church and church autonomy/cooperation
 * * Conservative institutional - non-ecumenical, believe in obedience as well as faith, no instrumental music, etc.
 * * Liberal institutional - as you said, basically community churches; arguable that many of this number are no longer associated with churches of Christ (as with Lucado and Shelly) though they trace their history from them.

 * There may be better terms to describe each camp, but these are the ones I see. Thoughts? Jdb1972 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that the traditional conservative churches of Christ preach the church rather than Jesus is a point of view that would be very offensive to most members. Jdavidb 17:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That certainly wasn't my intention. Has that not been your experience? I've actually heard people say things like "He preaches too much Jesus and not enough about the church." Danlovejoy 22:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I have not experienced that, but I have experienced persons in group three and four say the opposite about group two. Jdavidb 14:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not to be coy, but why do you suppose that is? Danlovejoy 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have never heard anyone preach the "church" rather than "Jesus". Some discussion of "what is the church?" but nothing more than that. Just my experience. 12.217.48.171 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vacation Bible School
I think we need to separate out subjects like Vacation Bible School from that big long list. That's not in any way distinctive of the church of Christ, as seen in the Vacation Bible School article.

Maybe a list of commonalities with mainstream evangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism, preceded by (or perhaps followed by) a list of distinctive doctrines and practices (with the ever present caveat that some churches are in various stages of mainstreaming and assimilation with the rest of Protestantism so individual items on the list may vary).

I mean, believe in verbal-plenary inspiration and infallibility of the Scripture is hardly unique to the church of Christ, being shared with fundamentalism and Catholicism, I believe. While it's not something that every Christian tradition in the world accepts, it's also not exactly something that makes the casual observer say, "Whoa! I never heard of a church like that!"

Same goes for beliefs on hell, homosexuality, Satan, abortion, etc.

In terms of truly distinctive beliefs and practices, you have: prohibition of instrumental music (probably not most important, but definitely most notable to outside observers, in my experience), necessity of baptism for salvation, church leadership organization (and lack of clergy), amillenialism, and a couple of others. The vast majority of the rest of that list is either common to almost all southern fundamentalist churches, or else something that's not completely unheard of (such as the position on women leadership). Jdavidb 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Link to preachersfiles.com
Hmm, a quandry for me.

I run a discussion website for members of the church of Christ. I have steadfastly refrained from adding it to this article's external links section because I do not believe in using Wikipedia for self-promotion.

However, if you check this user's edits, all he did was add in a link to the similar site Preachersfiles.com, which would appear to be the same kind of self-promotion.

I make a lot of sweeps around Wikipedia looking for self-promotion and removing it, but I feel a conflict of interest about making the same decision here. So I'll bring it to the attention of this article's other editors and let you decide if it's an appropriate link for this article. Jdavidb 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * How do you know that the user owns Preachersfiles.com? The IP 67.141.90.91 belongs to ALLTEL.net, an ISP based in Arkansas.  While the Preachersfiles.com is registered to an address in Austin, TX.  If there's some type of concrete connection between the IP and preachersfiles.com's ownership, I don't see it.  Could it be the IP is just a dialup IP that that particular person was connected to at the time?  Maybe they've done other edits through different IPs?   -Ichabod 23:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Published by G. E. Watkins of Strickland Grove church of Christ, Georgetown, Texas and by Kevin Cauley of Berryville church of Christ, Berryville, Arkansas." . Berryville and Harrison (the IP location) are right next door to each other.  -Jdb1972 10:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Umm. Remove, obviously. (IMO) Danlovejoy 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's been almost two months and there seems to be a consensus in favor of it going away. So, I removed it.  If there's an objection, let's hear it now, please.  Jdb1972 14:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Protestant
I have reverted from Psy Guy's version to the previous version by jdavidb because the prior explanation had a lot more information and the edit removed them. The only new information I saw there was an assertion about the term "second reformationist" being used often to describe the COC. I have never heard this expression before. If I haven't heard it in 31 years, it's not used "often," at least not in the US. Danlovejoy 22:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't see the text, but do you think what might have been meant by "second reformationist" was the Second Great Awakening? Alan Canon 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I had heard the term "Second Reformationist" used in a more theological rather than historical context. It meant that Protestants refer back to the reformation under Martin Luther.  Luther attempted to reform the Catholic Church by going back to the Scriptures.  Other Protestant leaders followed Luther.  The COC, on the other hand, had their own reformation of sorts by not following Luther but doing what he did (reverting back to the way of the Scriptures but doing it with an memory of Catholicism).  I don't know how well the term is used but I have heard it so sum up the difference but mainline Protestantism and the COC.  I suppose before using the term before I did I should have tried to find it used in some academic source and/or discussed it on the talk page.  I am now more familiar with wiki protocal. Psy guy (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

ex-ChurchofChrist.com link restored
An anonymous editor removed this link a couple of revisions ago. I think it's an interesting, informative resource. I don't really like that it exists, but it's there, and it's relevant. I have restored the link. What does everyone think? Danlovejoy 22:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur. We can't afford to remove links just because we don't like what they say, which was almost certainly the anonymous editor's motivation.  We definitely need at least one link to a diametrically opposed view, and that one is pretty representative.  I'd rather we keep that than let a bunch of uninformed confused people add links to anti-ICOC sites, which would have nothing to do with the church of Christ. :) Jdavidb 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Believers Baptism
Is it really appropriate to link to the Believers Baptism article? In general, most people seem to think of that term as meaning "baptism of already saved believers," rather than the typical belief of the church of Christ, which is "baptism of people who believe so that they can be saved." In particular, the article starts out defining "Believers Baptism" as baptism given to those who have "made a declaration of faith in Jesus as their personal savior." In general in the church of Christ, the "personal savior" phrase is avoided, and the implication is that the believer is already saved rather than being baptized to be saved. There's a tiny link in the article to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, but really the main Baptism article covers the point of view of the church of Christ much better. Wouldn't it be better to link to Baptism instead? Jdavidb 14:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you because of the current content of the two baptism articles, but otherwise, I'd support believers' baptism. I have always used the term to contrast with "unbelievers' baptism" namely infant baptism.  We agree that one has to be a believer (or disciple) first to be baptized, but the believers baptism article needs to be NPOVed to avoid forcing the Evangelical/Baptist doctrine of salvation before baptism into the term. Carltonh 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Universities
I removed the long list of universities in Church Organization, because it is quite long already, and will continue to get longer as people realize their pet institution is not included. Instead, I have provided a link to the category, which is, I believe, definitive. Danlovejoy 03:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Divorce and remarriage: revisited
We as members of the Church of Christ only believe in two reasons for remarriage, fornication and being married to a non-member who decides to leave the marriage. Those are the only two reasons. Abuse is not considered.

 * Does ongoing, willfull sinning place one outside the body of Christ? Severe abuse of one's wife is certainly a sin and opposite Christ's explicit instructions.  But then again so is divorce.  Maybe this is fodder for an email list... I need to study this. 12.217.48.171 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In further consideration of the topic, as well as pretty extensive discussion with other members of the church, I don't think it accurate to say that "we" only believe it two reasons for remarriage. There's much debate on the matter, with "only for adultery" being explicitly stated, and "also if divorced by a non-believer" being inferred from a verse in 1 Cor and often a point of contention.  It would be more accurate to say that "Members of the Church of Christ believe that adultery alone is reason for divorce between members of the Church, and there is disagreement on the matter of whether a spouse divorced by a non-member other than for adultery may remarry without living in sin."  12.217.48.171 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not really sure there's anything like a concensus on MDR among churches. I know of churches/people that run the gamut from any divorce is a sin to any remarriage is acceptable.  Not to mention every position in between.  And that's just in NI churches.  Jdb1972 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My point, which I may have stated poorly above, is that all CoC congregations believe divorce for adultery is acceptable, and beliefs vary from congregation to congregation on the matter of getting remarried after being divorced by a non-believer. Or many other reasons for that matter. 12.217.48.171 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I updated the piece on the front to note the exceptions vary and the differences in interpretation of particulars, especially among NI churches. Jdb1972 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of doctrine on divorce and remarriage may be highly controversial in NI churches right now, but in my experience it varies far more widely in the mainstream churches. I think the NI churches are just seeing what has been going on in the mainstream churches for years. I'd suggest the especially NI clause probably doesn't belong. Jdavidb (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm open to it going away, but most everyone I've ever talked to it believes it's more pronounced (or at least more an issue of controversy) in NI churches. Part of this is due to the "Homer Hailey" doctrine (if you divorce and remarry sinfully before you're a Christian, the marriage you're in when baptized is sanctified), part due to the more recent controversy over "mental divorce" with Truth Magazine.  Seems to be the issue of the past decade or so where NI churches are concerned.  Either way, no biggie to me.  Jdb1972 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dancing
We believe that all dancing is wrong. Dancing is only allowed between married couples, and then they must limit it to the privacy of their homes.

 * Not to be too glib, but... "all dancing"? What about square dancing?  Plus, it's far from universal in all of the above statements.  Would be better to state something like, "Most forms of modern dancing are usually forbidden as lewdness."  Even then, I'm not sure it needs to appear in the article, since it's hardly a core belief of churches of Christ (if such a thing as a core belief can be said to exist today) nor unique to us.  Jdb1972 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The thing I would like our anonymous contributor to remember is that this article must describe both faithful and fallen churches of Christ. (And please sign your comments with ~ .) Jdavidb (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Dancing is permitted scripturally, but in what contexts? 1) Worship, and 2) Joy.  Carousing (which is at the very least "most" public dancing) is prohibited explicitly.  Dancing for worship isn't commanded, just not condemned in the OT.  Dancing for joy is only showin in the Bible in one's home.  I'm sure there's lots of ways to interpret these, but whatever you post up on dancing should reflect the range of views, not just my own (which is that we're clearly told not to carouse as well as plenty of other commands that dancing makes people prone to breaking). I hope I'm welcome in these conversations, I'm commenting a lot in the discussion here but if I'm not welcome just let me know.  12.217.48.171 18:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What the scriptural position is or isn't is not the question. The questions to me are (1) what represents the consensus view of churches (or at least the major camps on any given issue) and (2) is this a "core"/defining issue?  These are what I tried to answer above; my conclusion is that it's probably not a defining issue.  As far as being welcome, you're certainly as welcome as anyone else here; no one owns these pages. Jdb1972 19:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd agree it isn't a defining issue. 12.217.48.171 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Stupid me. I didn't even realize this is already covered by the article until today. Jdb1972 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sect

 * Removed the word "sect". The primary meaning of "sect" in it's current usage means roughly "branch". The Iglesia ni Cristo did not branch from another church currently existing today. (elantaran 3/31/05)

Church of Christ, Scientist
Shouldn't this church also be included?

 * You're right, and I'm surprised that was not listed. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Substandard
This page needs some serious work. Its hard to read and is innacurate in a few places (churches of christ for one). I'll put it on my list of things to do, but I've already got quite a list. Someone want to help do some cleanup? --Raogden 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add listings of the various flavours of the Church of Christ, as I relocate them. I had had almost a dozen bookmarked, before losing everything to a Firefox upgrade.(Not all are/were in the Category listing.)jonathon (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NT Claim
The first meaning listed here is:

"Churches of Christ is one of the descriptions found in the New Testament for local bodies of believers/followers of Jesus Christ."

Anyone have a citation for this? Where does the NT call the bodies "Churches of Christ"? –SESmith 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * someone's put up Romans 16:16. Thanks –SESmith 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rom. 16:16 is accurate. Paul calls the bodies churches of Christ in that passage. Of course, scripture also refers to the churches by other names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.130.87 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I propose that this DAB page be moved to Church of Christ. Currently, Church of Christ redirects to Churches of Christ. However, I believe that this page would be more useful as the DAB page, since Churches of Christ is not, in my opinion, the "well known primary meaning for [the] term or phrase, much more used than any other". It might meet this standard if we limited our concern to just the United States, but almost definitely not if you include rest of the English-speaking world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now it's completely backwards. The page with "Churches" (plural) should more accurately be the DAB page and include the various denominational assemblies that exist. The singular "Church of Christ" page should point to the original Church, established at the death of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guile AF (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Christ is NOT a denomination!
The term "christian" is used far to loosly, 1 John: 1: 3 says "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."; to come together and have fellowship, christians would have to think alike, for example most denominations think that baptism isn't necessary (these denominations include Cathlic, Baptist, methodist, and many others); the Church of Christ is not just another denominational name, Acts: 2: 38 says "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you into the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit." so being baptized is God's law. If you are going to write an encyclopedia-article about something, then you should write it corectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwooper (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Correctly" according to whose definition of "Christian"? There is not one monolithic, widely-accepted definition. WP seems to take the approach that persons are Christians if they claim to be so. Anyone can use the name "Church of Christ" — this page simply lists the groups that do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the correct definition would be that of the original Church of Christ, established by Jesus Christ by His death on the Cross. It's the ONLY assembly created by Him, and not by man. And sure, anyone can use the name "Church of Christ" as their name, but you can legally change your name to "Ronald Regan". It doesn't make you a former President of the US. So the page would be more accurate (and that's the goal here) if it would link "Churches of Christ" to this disambiguation page, and "Church of Christ" to the page currently listed under "Churches of Christ". There is only ONE church, with many buildings for members of the Church to assemble and worship. It's the Church of Christ. Guile AF (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "Correct definition" is very much in the eye of the beholder.At least a dozen different organizations and affiliated groups of congregations claim to be "the only assembly established by Jesus by his death on the cross."jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The more appropriate move would be from Churches of Christ to Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) or Church of Christ (A Cappella) or Church of Christ (A Capella), and have Church of Christ (disambiguation) redirect to Church of Christ. Perhaps also have Churches of Christ redirect to Church of Christ (Non Instrumental).  jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * With Church of Christ as an article about a specific, loosely affiliated group of congregations, it will need more than the current three line disambiguation header that it currently has. jonathon (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

INSTRUMENTAL WORSHIP
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE USE OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN WORSHIP OF GOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.163.7 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambig or Stand alone list
If this is a list what is it a list of? Is it a "List of Churches of Christ"? WP:LISTNAME says Standard practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___. Should we move the article to "List of Churches of Christ"? As it stands it seems like this is really a disambig page but then we have two disambig pages with the same name. Bhny (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

church of Christ
In Matthew 16:18 Christ said he would build his Church, one Church that belonged to him. Paul talks about this Church in Romans 16:16. We see that he is addressing the churches of Christ in verses 1-15.Christ Church the only church of Christ that was authorized by God the Father was started on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD.in the city of Jerusalem.

title: Talk:Church of Christ/Archive 1


text:
User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Sami Abdul Aziz Salim Allaithy

__NOINDEX__

Sami Al Laithi is an Egyptian citizen. Al Laithi spent over three years detained in Camp Delta at the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Prior to the Invasion of Afghanistan Al Laithi was teaching English and Arabic at Kabul University.

During his stay at Camp Delta Al Laithi was rendered a paraplegic. Al Laithi says shortly after his arrival in Cuba, during a beating administered in the prison hospital, a guard threw him on the floor, and stomped on his back. He says he has been in constant pain ever since.

Al Laithi says the beating crushed two of his vertebrae, confining him to a wheelchair. He says he believes that the prison authorities denied him medical care that would have prevented him being crippled.

Al Laithi is one of the small percentage of Guantanamo detainees who, during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, was determined not to have been an "illegal combatant" after all.

Al Laithi has a long record of criticism of the Egyptian government. He does not wish the Americans to return him to Egypt, now that they have determined that he has no ties to terrorism. As of September 2005 he reamined confined to Camp Delta.

Al Laithi's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, has asked for Al Laithi to get medical care for his injuries, for the release of his prison medical records, and for him to be released from solitary confinement.

Repatriation to Egypt
In early October American authorities announced that they had repatriated an Egyptian national back to his home country. Press reports quoted American authorities as saying that the Egyptian had been determined to no longer pose a security threat through an "Administrative Review" -- the follow-on to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

But on October 5, 2005, a Washington Post article positively identified the Egyptian being repatriated as Al Laithi. The Post quoted Command Flex Plexico, who said:

 * ''"Prior to returning this detainee to Egypt, the United States received appropriate assurances from the government of Egypt regarding this detainee's treatment upon his return to Egypt. This includes assurances that this individual will continue to be treated humanely, in accordance with Egyptian and international legal obligations, while he remains in Egypt," Plexico said.

According to the article Pentagon spokesmen claimed:

 * ''"This individual's current health problems resulted from an injury sustained before our involvement with him. According to the detainee's statements to us, his injury was sustained in an automobile accident, and the damage has progressed over time," Plexico said.

 * ''"There are no indications that his condition was adversely affected by his detention."

The Pentagon has consistently refused to release Al Laithi's medical records to his lawyers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Laeliopsis

Laeliopsis is a genus of moths in the family Lasiocampidae. The genus was erected by Per Olof Christopher Aurivillius in 1911.

Species

 * Laeliopsis erythrura Aurivillius, 1914
 * Laeliopsis gemmatus Wichgraf, 1921
 * Laeliopsis maculigera Strand, 1913
 * Laeliopsis punctuligera Aurivillius, 1911

title: Laeliopsis


text:
Live at the Roxy (Social Distortion album)

Live at the Roxy is a live album by American punk rock band Social Distortion. It was released in 1998, on the independent label Time Bomb label. It is the last Social Distortion release to feature founding rhythm guitarist Dennis Danell, who died in 2000. John Moore of New Noises referred to Live at the Roxy as one of the best live punk rock albums of all time.

Personnel

 * Mike Ness lead guitar, lead vocals
 * Dennis Danell rhythm guitar
 * John Maurer bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Chuck Biscuits percussion

Track listing
All songs written by Mike Ness unless otherwise noted.
 * 1) "Story of My Life" – 6:00
 * 2) "Bad Luck" – 4:27
 * 3) "Under My Thumb" (Jagger-Richards) – 2:51
 * 4) "Prison Bound" – 6:36
 * 5) "Mommy's Little Monster" – 4:05
 * 6) "Mass Hysteria" – 3:23
 * 7) "The Creeps" (Danell, Ness) – 3:03
 * 8) "Another State of Mind" – 2:51
 * 9) "Let it Be Me" – 4:29
 * 10) "No Pain, No Gain" – 3:24
 * 11) "Cold Feelings" – 3:54
 * 12) "Telling Them" – 3:58
 * 13) "I Was Wrong" – 4:01
 * 14) "1945" – 3:00
 * 15) "Don't Drag Me Down" – 4:56
 * 16) "Ball and Chain" – 7:04
 * 17) "Ring of Fire" (Cash, Kilgore) – 8:32
 * 18) Untitled – 0:04


text:
Shchekino

Shchekino (Щёкино), also romanized Shchyokino, is a town and the administrative center of Shchyokinsky District in Tula Oblast, Russia, located on the Moscow—Simferopol highway (M2), 25 km south of Tula, the administrative center of the oblast. Population:   72,000 (1977).

History
It was founded in 1871 in connection with the development of brown coal deposits and soon supplanted Krapivna as the main settlement in the district. It was granted town status in 1938.

Administrative and municipal status
Within the framework of administrative divisions, Shchekino serves as the administrative center of Shchyokinsky District. As an administrative division, it is incorporated within Shchyokinsky District as Shchekino Town Under District Jurisdiction. As a municipal division, Shchekino Town Under District Jurisdiction is incorporated within Shchyokinsky Municipal District as Shchekino Urban Settlement.

Notable people

 * Daria Abramova (born 1990) amateur boxer (2019 European Games featherweight women's bronze medalist)

title: Shchekino


text: User talk:68.184.39.145

title: User talk:68.184.39.145


text: Talk:Live at the Roxy (Social Distortion album)


text:
Andrew Constable, Lord Constable

Arthur Henderson Briggs "Andrew" Constable, Lord Constable (3 March 1865 – 4 November 1928) was a Scottish advocate, judge and Conservative politician. He served as Dean of Faculty and as Solicitor General.

Life
He was born in Benarty, Fife, the son of William Briggs Constable. He was educated at Dollar Academy and the University of Edinburgh, where he was Vans Dunlop Scholar in Political Economy. He was admitted as an advocate in 1889 and appointed a King's Counsel in 1908.

He was unsuccessful Conservative parliamentary candidate for East Fife in 1900, Kirkcaldy Burghs in 1906, Montrose Burghs in 1908 and Glasgow Blackfriars in 1910. At this time he was living at 23 Royal Circus.

He served as Sheriff of Caithness from 1917 to 1920 and of Sheriff of Argyll from February–May 1920, when he was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

He briefly served as Solicitor General for Scotland from March to June 1922. In July 1922 he was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, succeeding Lord Salvesen, and took the judicial title Lord Constable.

He was created a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 1920 New Year Honours.

In 1925 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, his proposers were Sir James Alfred Ewing, Sir Thomas Hudson Beare, Sir Harold Jalland Stiles, and William Wilson.

He is buried in a row of modern law lords against the north wall of the 20th century extension to Dean Cemetery in Edinburgh.

Publications

 * Treatise on Provisional Orders (1900)

Family
In 1895 he married Elizabeth Simpson (1870–1947).

title: Andrew Constable, Lord Constable


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbershop in Germany

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge with Barbershop music Ryan Norton T 20:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Barbershop in Germany
non-notable and non-sensical Gator1 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Gator1 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Barbershop music. That article has a subsection for organizations. -- keep sleep ing   say what  19:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Keepsleeping. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MERGE as per Keepsleeping. --Tedzsee 03:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Keepsleeping. Rd232 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires IV

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Age of Empires IV

 * Delete This article contains information about a video game which hasn't even been announced.  This article is purely guesswork Dan M 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. KeithD (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, BUT I would vote for the rentention of the article if Ensemble Studios had not announced that Age of Empires III will most likely be the last of the series. Though the information that he provided is not confirmed by any source, if you look at the pattern for the time periods of the current trilogy, what he is saying would almost certainly be true, if they were to actually make said game. So delete because it isn't happening, not because the content is crystal ball.Frag
 * Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per not a crystal ball. Over-eager fan. Marskell 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. the wub  "?!"  22:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed, games that haven't been announced should not be added to Wikipedia (or any other item that hasn't been announced for that matter.Drizzt2 02:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Matthew 5:37

Matthew 5:37 is the thirty-seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This verse is part of either the third or fourth antithesis, the final part of the discussion of oaths.

Content
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
 * But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
 * for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:
 * But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’
 * Whatever is more than these is of the evil one.

The Novum Testamentum Graece text is:
 * ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ
 * τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub Matthew 5:37

Analysis
The exact meaning of this verse is much disputed. One reading is that one should simply answer requests with yes or no, and that anything extra, such as oaths, results in evil. This is very similar to a passage at James 5:12, which quite clearly has this meaning. For the Christian a simple yes or no should be sufficient, no oaths are required as they are to be trusted even without them. This is the most common understanding, and the WEB translation makes this view explicit.

However, the original Greek has the double word format shown in the KJV. The Slavonic Enoch states that a double yes or a double no were themselves forms of oath. By this understanding Jesus is not banning all oaths, but is stating that only this one form of oath is permissible. Theologian R.T. France believed the double words are simply a Semiticism that indicates the word is meant to be used on its own.

There are also multiple understandings of the final phrase. In Matthew 13:19, and in other parts of the New Testament, "Evil One" is used as a name for Satan. Scholar Eduard Schweizer believes that in this instance the gospel of Matthew describes Jesus saying that swearing was evil, not Satanic. Theologically, there is little difference between these interpretations.

Commentary from the Church Fathers
Rabanus Maurus: Having forbidden swearing, He instructs us how we ought to speak, Let your speech be yea, yea; nay, nay. That is, to affirm any thing it is sufficient to say, ‘It is so:’ to deny, to say, ‘It is not so.’ Or, yea, yea; nay, nay, are therefore twice repeated, that what you affirm with the mouth you should prove in deed, and what you deny in word, you should not establish by your conduct.

Hilary of Poitiers: Otherwise; They who live in the simplicity of the faith have not need to swear, with them ever, what is is, what is not is not; by this their life and their conversation are ever preserved in truth.

Jerome: Therefore Evangelic verity does not admit an oath, since the whole discourse of the faithful is instead of an oath.

Augustine: And he who has learned that an oath is to be reckoned not among things good, but among things necessary, will restrain himself as much as he may, not to use an oath without necessity, unless he sees men loth to believe what it is for their good they should believe, without the confirmation of an oath. This then is good and to be desired, that our conversation be only, yea, yea; nay, nay; for what is more than this cometh of evil. That is, if you are compelled to swear, you know that it is by the necessity of their weakness to whom you would persuade any thing; which weakness is surely an evil. What is more than this is thus evil; not that you do evil in this just use of an oath to persuade another to something beneficial for him; but it is an evil in him whose weakness thus obliges you to use an oath.

Chrysostom: Or; of evil, that is, from their weakness to whom the Law permitted the use of an oath. Not that by this the old Law is signified to be from the Devil, but He leads us from the old imperfection to the new abundance.

title: Matthew 5:37


text:
Talk:Abe Silverstein

Untitled
How about a picture? I'm sure NASA would allow any it has. There is so much stuff that could be added to this. He is a pioneer of the Space Race! His participation in the Space Race is a great jump point to all sorts of other information. He has even received the Guggenheim Medal.

http://sulu.lerc.nasa.gov/history/abe.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/abebio.html http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5034

66.14.219.136 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)TimC

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abe Silverstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201063908/http://astronautix.com/astros/silstein.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/silstein.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abe Silverstein


text: User talk:204.228.216.221

title: User talk:204.228.216.221


text:
Spoofed URL

A spoofed URL involves one website masquerading as another, often leveraging vulnerabilities in web browser technology to facilitate a malicious computer attack. These attacks are particularly effective against computers that lack up-to- security patches. Alternatively, some spoofed URLs are crafted for satirical purposes.

In such an attack scenario, an unsuspecting computer user visits a website and observes a familiar URL, like http://www.wikipedia.org, in the address bar. However, unbeknownst to them, the information they input is being directed to a completely different location, usually monitored by an information thief. When a fraudulent website requests sensitive information, it's referred to as phishing.

These fraudulent websites often entice users through emails or hyperlinks.

In a different variation, a website might resemble the original but is, in reality, a parody. These instances are generally harmless and conspicuously distinct from the genuine sites, as they typically do not exploit web browser vulnerabilities.

Another avenue for these exploits involves redirects within a hosts file, rerouting traffic from legitimate sites to an alternate IP associated with the spoofed URL.

Cyber security
Spoofing is the act of deception or hoaxing. URLs are the address of a resource (as a document or website) on the Internet that consists of a communications protocol followed by the name or address of a computer on the network and that often includes additional locating information (as directory and file names). Simply, a spoofed URL is a web address that illuminates an immense amount of deception through its ability to appear as an original site, despite it not being one. In order to prevent falling victim to the prevalent scams stemmed from the spoofed URLs, major software companies have come forward and advised techniques to detect and prevent spoofed URLs.

Detection
In order to prevent criminals from accessing personal information, such as credit card information, bank account/routing numbers, and one’s telephone number, home address, etc. it is important to learn and understand how these spoof URLs can be detected. It is very important to first verify the name of the site on a digital certification through the use of SSL/TLS. Always try to identify the actual URL for the web page you are on. Make sure you are able to see the full URL for any hyperlink, so that you can examine the address. Some characters that are commonly found in spoofed URLs are: %00, %01, @. Sometimes the URLs can differ by a single letter or number. In general, only input personal information on a Website if the name has been verified on the digital certificate. Also, if you have any concern about the confidentiality of a website leave the page immediately.

Prevention
Spoofed URLs, a universal defining identity for phishing scams, pose a serious threat to end-users and commercial institutions. Email continues to be the favorite vehicle to perpetrate such scams mainly due to its widespread use combined with the ability to easily spoof them. Several approaches, both generic and specialized, have been proposed to address this problem. However, phishing techniques, growing in ingenuity as well as sophistication, render these solutions weak. In order to prevent users from future victimization stemmed from a spoofed URL, Internet vigilantes have published numerous tips to help users identify a spoof. The most common are: using authentication based on key exchange between the machines on your network, using an access control list to deny private IP addresses on your downstream interface, implementing filters of both inbound and outbound traffic, configuring routers and switches if they support such configuration, to reject packets originating from outside the local network that claim to originate from within, and enable encryption sessions in the router so that trusted hosts that are outside your network can securely communicate with your local hosts. Ultimately, protection comes from the individual user. Keeping up with new spoofing techniques or scams will readily allow one to identify a scam and most importantly keep information secure and personal.

Susceptible targets
PayPal, an e-commerce business allows money transactions to be made through the Internet and is a common target for spoofed URLs. This forgery of a legitimate PayPal website allows hackers to gain personal and financial information and thus, steal money through fraud. Along with spoof or fake emails that appear with generic greetings, misspellings, and a false sense of urgency, spoofed URLs are an easy way for hackers to violate one’s PayPal privacy. For example, www.paypalsecure.com, includes the name, but is a spoofed URL designed to deceive. Remember to always log into PayPal through a new window browser and never log in through email. In the case that you do receive a suspected spoofed URL, forward the entire email to spoof@PayPal.com to help prevent the URL from tricking other PayPal users.

Common crimes
A major crime associated with spoofed URLs is identity theft. The thief will create a website very similar in appearance to that of a popular site, then when a user accesses the spoofed URL, they can inadvertently give the thief their credit card and personal details. Their spoofed URLs might use “too good to be true” prices to lure more and more looking for a good deal. Crimes like these happen quite often, and most frequently during the festive holidays and other heavy online shopping periods of the year.

Another crime associated with spoofed URLs is setting up a fake anti-malware software. An example of this would be Ransomware, fake anti-malware software that locks up important files for the computer to run, and forces the user to pay a ransom to get the files back. If the user refuses to pay after a certain period of time, the Ransomware will delete the files from the computer, essentially making the computer unusable. Ads for these programs usually appear on popular websites, such as dating sites or social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. They can also come in the form of attachments to emails. Phishing scams are also another major way that users can get tricked into scams (see below).

Phishing
Phishing is a scam by which an e-mail user is duped into revealing personal or confidential information which the scammer can use illicitly. Phishing is the action of fraudsters sending an email to an individual, hoping to seek private information used for identity theft, by falsely asserting to be a reputable legal business. Phishing is performed through emails containing a spoofed URL, which links them to a website. Since it usually appears in the form on an email, it is crucial to not rely just on the address in the “from” field in order to prevent phishing. Computer users should also look out for spelling mistakes within the website's URLs, as this is another common sign to look out for in a phishing email. The website whose URLs are in the e-mails requests individuals to enter personal information so businesses can update it in their system. This information often includes passwords, credit card numbers, social security, and bank account numbers. In turn, the email recipients are giving these fake businesses their information the real businesses already have.

title: Spoofed URL


text:
Matthew 5:38

Matthew 5:38 is the thirty-eighth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This verse begins the antithesis on the commandment: "Eye for an eye".

Content
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
 * Ye have heard that it hath been said,
 * An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

The World English Bible translates the passage as:
 * “You have heard that it was said,
 * ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’

The Novum Testamentum Graece text is:
 * Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη
 * Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος.

For a collection of other versions see BibleHub Matthew 5:38

Analysis
This verse begins in the same style as the earlier antitheses, that natural desire for retaliation or vengeance can be conveniently justified with a reference to the Old Testament: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, known as the principle of lex talionis ("the law of retribution"), is an ancient statement of the principle of retributive punishment dating back to the Code of Hammurabi. This phrasing appears several times in the Old Testament at Exodus, Leviticus , and Deuteronomy. This was a moderate rule compared with the blood feuds described in Genesis. The New Testament scholar R. T. France notes that by Jesus' era such punishments were no longer in practice, rather they had been replaced with fines judged to be of equal value to the damage caused. Thus, according to France, Jesus is not here condemning the violence or brutality of such punishments, but the very idea of retribution, which, together with the statement in the following few verses, forms the core of Jesus' teaching of nonviolence.

title: Matthew 5:38


text:
File:Survival of the sickest.jpg

Fair use rationale
It is contended that the use of this album cover in Survival of the Sickest qualifies as fair use for the following reasons:
 * 1) This image illustrates the cover of the album or associated single that is discussed in the article.
 * 2) This image can be used to identify the album or associated single that is the subject of this article.
 * 3) It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the album in any way.
 * 4) The image is of lower resolution than the original cover.
 * 5) The image is being used in an informative way and does not detract from sales of the album.
 * 6) No free or public domain images have been located for this album.

title: File:Survival of the sickest.jpg


text:
Ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces

The Ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces are the military insignia used by the Japan Self-Defense Forces.

History
Following the end of World War II in Asia, after the surrender of Japan, the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were dissolved by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in 1945, during the Allied occupation that lasted until 1952. The 1947 constitution stipulated that armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.

The symbols below represent the ranks of the Japan Self-Defence Forces: the Japan Ground Self-Defence Force, the Japan Air Self-Defence Force, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force, which replaced the imperial military in 1954.

The 1871–1945 Japanese military and naval ranks were phased out after World War II. The Self-Defence Force breaks away from the Sino-centric tradition of non-branch-specified ranks; each JSDF rank with respect to each service carries a distinct Japanese title, although equivalent titles in different branches are still similar, differing only in the use of the morphemes riku (ground) for the army ranks, kai (maritime) for the naval ranks, and kū (air) for the aviation ranks.

The pentagramic stars on the insignia represent cherry blossoms. Because Japanese soldiers take an oath to die to protect the lives and wealth of Japanese citizens, they have been compared to delicate cherry blossoms that break easily.

Commissioned officer ranks
The rank insignia of commissioned officers.

Other ranks
The rank insignia of non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel.

Commissioned officer ranks
The rank insignia of commissioned officers.

Other ranks
The rank insignia of non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel.

Commissioned officer ranks
The rank insignia of commissioned officers.

Other ranks
The rank insignia of non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel.


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/U.S. Infobox Proposals (2005)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about proposed changes to the Protected Areas Infobox. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the project's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was:
 * Support concept of Proposal #0, but with a different template (see Proposal #2).
 * Adopt proposals #1 – #4 (with discussion on minor aspects of #4 still possible on the template talk page).

— Eoghanacht  talk 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected Areas Infobox Proposals
Based on a vote from the WikiProject Protected areas talk page there is interest in discussing modifications to the Protected Areas Infobox. The purpose of this page is to work toward concensus on ideas that anyone may have, in preparation of moving to a template standard for the infobox.

The period for submitting new proposals is now closed.

From October 14, 2005 until October 28, you may vote or comment on a proposal, or change your vote. Vote either "Support" or "Oppose." Please sign your vote with four tildes ( ~ ).

Proposal #0: Use a template

After any proposals to modify the content of the infobox are settled, use the Template:Protected Area Table for articles about protected areas in or related to the United States.

As there was near unanimous support for the move to a template format during the initial phase of gauging interest on the talk page, we shall take this proposal as accepted. If you have any particular concerns with use of a template, or want to help work updating the encoding, please comment at: Template talk:Protected Area Table. Note that Proposal #2 is for a modified template with similar content.

The template has been added to the following articles for testing purposes:
 * Ia, ??? (unable to find a separate article for this IUCN category)
 * Ib, Bob Marshall Wilderness
 * II, Mesa Verde National Park
 * III, El Morro National Monument
 * IV, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
 * V, New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve
 * VI, Shoshone National Forest

Note that some fields are optional. For example, if you do not have a source for visitation numbers for an area, if you leave that field blank, then no row will display for visitation.

Proposal #1: Provide for seconds in the coordinates row
''Program the new template to allow for degrees-minutes-seconds in the coordinates row. If possible, make the display of the seconds optional. If the programming is too difficult to make them optional, then for existing articles that only cite degrees and minutes enter a "0" in the seconds fields.''

Comments (Prop. #1)

 * I have been working on quite a few small sites where the seconds are needed. An example of the change to existing reference (Yellowstone National Park) would be 44.66667°N, -110.46667°W vs. 44.66667°N, -110.46667°W. —  Eoghanacht  talk 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes (Prop. #1)

 * Support — Eoghanacht  talk 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support MONGO 23:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal #2: Redesigned Template
Adopt a newly programmed Template:Infobox protected area, with a change in IUCN colors for visual clarity.

In a nutshell, this template is different from the existing one in that it:
 * Is based on existing Wikipedia Infobox styles;
 * Rearranges some of the data;
 * Gracefully allows any parameter to be omitted; and
 * Requires fewer under-the-hood template calls.

This demonstration version is fully functional as. Please see its talk page for an example and usage instructions. There is also a full-context example; you can test it with any of the other IUCN categories if you wish. Another test is at St. Clement's Island, a state park. The Notes and Explanations section goes into detail about some of how it's built.

Comments (Prop. #2)

 * I don't see this proposal as being in competition with Eoghanacht's existing template, but I couldn't demonstrate my suggestions without building something new. It's different enough that I'm putting it up as a separate proposal, though any of these ideas could be combined easily enough. I will refrain from voting because it's my proposal. —Papayoung ☯ 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work. Some thoughts:
 * 1) I think it is fine to eliminate the "designation" field and merge the designation with the header name.
 * 2) But from the existing infobox I did like the background color for the name row -- if this is too difficult, perhaps moving the IUCN category row immediately after the name (and just above the map, rather than just below it) is better -- and center the IUCN row rather than left justify.
 * 3) * I can live with that; it differs from the standard Infobox layout, but it will look fine. —Papayoung ☯
 * 4) When I tested the various IUCN display colors for this template they seem to be pastel versions of the ones currently being used.  But the current colors are already "registered" in the color listing in Infobox.
 * 5) * I see that. I suppose I have to make that a separate proposal, then? (Please guide me.) The dark colors currently registered just do not work with black text, because there's not enough contrast. Visually impaired users or those with dark monitors will find that information unusable. —Papayoung ☯
 * 6) ** I think one just needs to add the colors to the list. I put a comparison chart above.  None of the new colors is claimed. These colors can be tweaked later on anyway, independent of inputing the content into articles (part of the beauty of using a template). —  Eoghanacht  talk 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) The "date established" field is programmed to accept a year and automatically wikify it -- but it causes problems if you input the day and month.  But I often like to put the exact date.  Is there a way to enter the date established as three fields (year, month, day) and if the day and month fields are blank they won't show?
 * 8) * There is a way, though it further complicates the template and its use in articles. I suggest we go back to a simple date field; it's easy enough to wikify a date, and robots often come along and do it anyway. —Papayoung ☯
 * 9) Also, I would name the template: "Protected areas infobox" (note the plural "areas"). —  Eoghanacht  talk 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) * I disagree here, because with only two exceptions every listed Infobox template is singular. And the box applies to a single protected area. —Papayoung ☯
 * 11) ** okay — Eoghanacht  talk 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) One more comment: Can the optional image caption be centered? —  Eoghanacht  talk 13:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) * I'm pretty attached to the left-justification; it matches the current Wikipedia style for captions. Centered text would also create too many ragged margins. —Papayoung ☯

 * Here are some thoughts of mine:
 * 1) Exact date for the "date established" is quite necessary, but it looks like it's there in the sample template on this page.  Did I miss something?
 * 2) * Unless there's a sudden debate, I'll make Eoghanacht's friendly amendments to this proposal today. One of them will be that dates can be entered in whatever format you choose. —Papayoung ☯
 * 3) The PNG locator image is 280 pixels and the space provided in the table is 288 pixels.  It looks blurry since Wikipedia is manipulating the image befor sending it.  The template should provide for exactly the width of the standard US locator maps.
 * 4) * I didn't look at the original images, assumed they were larger. For now I'll reduce the image size (and corresponding Infobox width) so Wikimedia doesn't resize them. It wold be great to go back and create new, vector-based (and therefore scalable) locator maps. Is there a definitive list somewhere of the locators that have been made? —Papayoung ☯
 * 5) I was sort of confused about why the designation was not part of the header in the existing infoboxes.  Not knowing why, I made my original template the same way.  I agree that the designation field can be merged with the title, since that would be exactly the proper title of the protected area anyway. Mrendo 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've made the changes discussed above: moved the IUCN category above the image, and de-auto-wikied the establishment date. —Papayoung ☯ 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Overall I like it now, but I'll wait for others to comment before voting. I was not involved in making the original images, and don't know how to edit the vector format, so perhaps that should be a separate proposal -- in order to debate that one issue.  It looks good, though, except perhaps I wonder if the peach color for Canada and Mexico somehow competes with the IUCN colors.  One other thought, if the images are vector based, perhaps we could consider narrowing the box.  The taxobox is only about 250px (example) -- a narrower box would be helpful in allowing space for left-justified images near the top of a protected area article (example: Ford's Theatre). —  Eoghanacht  talk 13:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I missed this before. I could be convinced, though I prefer to keep it at the "standard" width for Infoboxes (300px) for consistency's sake, and on an 800-pixels-wide monitor the Infobox and a left-floated picture don't fit even at the narrower box width anyway. It's also true that if we make it narrower we'll need to say "IUCN cat. VI" rather than "IUCN category VI", to keep that line from wrapping. But this is minor; like I say, I can be convinced if you feel strongly. I'm also very happy with how this is all coming together. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You guys are doing a great job...the new proposed template as shown with the new map is a tremendous addition and really brings the articles to life. I added subheadings to my version of Shoshone National Forest and am going to try before I take a two week vacation, to greatly expand the article text. Feel free to implement the new infobox with scalable map and new color scheme for top border into my origial article. I am hoping we can all work collaboartively to bring it to featured article status to show off you guys excellent alterations to the infobox and this project.--MONGO 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes (Prop. #2)

 * Support (noting that which image to put into the new template is a separate proposal) — Eoghanacht  talk 15:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support change to proposed color scheme...darker colors blend out text too much.--MONGO 17:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support (I realize I said earlier I wouldn't vote on this, but looking at this process I see it's more appropriate to do so.) —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal #3: Make vector based maps the standard
Use a new scaleable, vector based map (see example below by Papayoung).

Comments (Prop. #3)

 * I like how the new example is clear and scaleable. I am not sure about the particular colors, yet (but I could be convinced). —  Eoghanacht  talk 15:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I took the colors from the current map style guidelines (such as they are) put forth by the WikiProject Maps group. I also wasn't sure about the colors, but there are some professional cartographers working over there, and the more I use them the better I like them. Another advantage of Proposal #4 (below) is that if most locators are using one base map image, that image can be changed to suit the mapping group's guidelines as they come out. —Papayoung ☯ 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What other maps are available? There are several U.S. federal gov't protected areas in the Caribbean, and a few in Pacific insular areas. --—  Eoghanacht  talk 12:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes (Prop. #3)

 * Support new proposed scalable map as replacement.--MONGO 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support — Eoghanacht  talk 14:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal #4: Add Automatic Locator Function to Infobox Template
''Add two parameters to the Infobox template, named locator_x and locator_y, which will automatically add a 10-pixel locator dot over the image. the parameters are the number of pixels from the left and top, respectively, to offset the locator dot.''

For examples of how it looks and and is used, see the Infobox in Proposal #2, above, and the talk page for. This proposal can be combined with any of the other proposals on this page.

Comments (Prop. #4)

 * Separating my opinons out from the proposal itself, I think the advantages are that only one image is ever required for any locator area (like the US, in the example), users can make locators without having to make maps, and it makes it easy to be consistent. Disadvantages include adding one more template call from within this template (a technical issue), and making the template declaration two lines longer. —Papayoung ☯ 16:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Too Cool -- it will make image making and maintaining much easier, and allow modifications to a single image once, that will then display everywhere it is used. 10 pix may be too big (how does 7 or 8 pix look?), but it looks like the sizing of the dot is governed by the template, rather than the parameters in each article, so it too can be easily modified.  One technical glitch: for this first test it looks like the background of the dot is grey, rather than transparent. —  Eoghanacht  talk 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Your browser doesn't support transparent PNG files, or at least not in this context. Would you be willing to tell me the browser, version and platform you're using, so I can try to test it? Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 17:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MS Internet Explorer 6.0, on a Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Version: 5.1.2600, service pack 2.
 * I need further clarification on this, but is sounds awesome.--MONGO 17:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears Internet Explorer just doesn't do transparent PNGs. I know there's a fix you can enable from within a Web page, but Wikimedia does not seem to be employing it (yet). I'm going to look into that. In the meantime, I've replaced the SVG (which turns into a PNG) file with a GIF. —Papayoung ☯ 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dot size, I tried it smaller and to my eye it just disappeared too much. As before, I can be convinced if you feel strongly about it. Please comment if you do. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you add dots of different sizes to test image US Locator No Labels.svg? How about right up the middle: 10 pix in Texas, 9 in Oklahoma, 8 Kansas, 7 Nebraska, 6 South Dakota, and 5 in N. Dakota? —  Eoghanacht  talk 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you go; left to right because they're spaced further apart, ranging from ten pixels to six. I still feel bigger is better, because it's immediately visible. Finer locating is supported by the coordinates link immediately below the map in the table. —Papayoung ☯ 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How about 8 pix? — Eoghanacht  talk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. —Papayoung ☯ 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * One thought: how would one incorporate the dot into a map for a non-central area, such as Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail? I presume one would need to make a custom map for that one article and just leave the X and Y fields blank? — Eoghanacht  talk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case I agree a custom map would be better. I would like to see most maps in this project keep a similar style, and will continue to offer to make maps on request. And yes, to omit the locator dot you just leave the x and y fields empty. —Papayoung ☯ 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes (Prop. #4)

 * Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support with an 8 pixels dot — Eoghanacht  talk 14:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the discussion and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User talk:165.139.21.151

title: User talk:165.139.21.151