The Creative Commons license for the image requires attribution (See Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0). I could not find on Flikr where the author specifies in the manner the attribution to be carried out. I don't know if attribution on the photos page is acceptable. The alternative is to remove the image. -- Micah 06:29, 22 August 2006 (MST)
The attribution already exists on the main page for the image...what appears in the article is a thumbnail with a link to that page and doesn't have to include the credit. -- Sans Deity 07:18, 22 August 2006 (MST)
I'll take that as executive policy and make future image submission only attribute on the image's main page. Thank you. -- Micah 08:47, 22 August 2006 (MST)
Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- Sans Deity 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)
There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.
Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.
(The above comment was left by User:Stig.)
- Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see Matthew 10:32-38 ), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think verse 34 refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.
- As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --Arensb 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)
The article assumed the second verse implied that it advocated violence while the first did not, and out out of context (cherry picked) it may seem that way.--Stig 11:06, 4 October 2008 (CDT)
Shellfish vs Gay Rights
The Old Testament is applied in light of the New Testament. While there is a case for shellfish and any foods not being forbidden in the NT, ie Jesus stated there is nothing unclean that goes into the body, there is no later acceptance of homosexual relations in the New Testament.--Stig 11:18, 4 October 2008 (CDT)
- First of all, if you're talking about Mark 7:15 and Matthew 15:11 , strictly speaking, those verses don't say that pork and shellfish aren't unclean; just that eating them won't make you unclean.
- Secondly, what you say about homosexual relations also applies to slavery (still allowed), touching menstruating women (still forbidden), wearing gold jewelry and cotton-polyester clothes (still forbidden), and so on. --Arensb 12:07, 4 October 2008 (CDT)
Acts 10:13 and 10:15 account for unclean animals. There is an example of a woman healed of an issue of blood by touching Jesus (who also had a habit of touching unclean lepers). Gold and coats of different materials are most likely of cultural signifigance - an aim to create a separate identity for the Israelites from other tribes.--Stig 08:25, 5 October 2008 (CDT)