Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

i wish they let you write on the talk page so i could ask when will this New Fascist Bible be available to the public

I guess this is an overly sincere response but it always depresses me when people subordinate their religion to their own complacency, ideological or otherwise

can't wait for the inevitable splitters groups to form, the arguments ought to be classic

this sort of collaborative effort seems pretty commie

do these people know that they're leninists or what

goole this is maybe my favorite politically related ilx post ever and I fucking salute you for real

this is so awesome

ha! thx j0hn

Accept the Logic of Hell!

Andy Schlafly 16:56

I briefly got super-psyched about the idea that these guys were actually inventing new books for the Bible named after themselves before realizing that was a timestamp.

I would be down with reading the Gospel According to HI DERE

ha hahhaa

In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was with Moz, and the word was Moz

I really hope that was not an attempt to write my Gospel, as it means nothing to me or to my life.

Jesus hung from the cross (in abasement)

This is much more likely to be part of my Gospel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxHCXoM2SGg

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chYba6bt4aA

lol "(Radio Edit)"

i wish they let you write on the talk page so i could ask when will this New Fascist Bible be available to the public

I know. I want to ask them if it will be available in time for the holidays.

Looking at the current draft of the Gospel of Mark (at http://conservapedia.com/Gospel_of_Mark_(Translated) ), basically it seems like what would happen if the RSV was attempted by some dudes on the internet working off the KJV instead of a consortium of scholars working from Hebrew and Greek texts. Shocking, I know.

I was looking to get all het up about them bastardizing it, but really the only thing that rubs me really wrong thus far is that they do not seem to get the point of the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees, at all. The translation of Mark 7:2 as "They observed several disciples eating bread without first washing their hands, and used that to criticize Jesus" with a note asking "is defiled necessary here?" makes it seem like their whole conception of the Pharisees is of a group of people who wash their hands before eating, because it is a tradition and traditions were important to them. But Jesus was different! (Presumably not different in a liberal way; if anything, Jesus was opposed to the liberal fear-mongering of Pharisees subjugating an individual's right to not wash their hands.)

I am kind of amped for the translation of "outdo one another in giving honor" and "live in harmony with one another" stuff from Romans, though.

King James Version
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Proposed Conservative Translation
He instructed them to take only a walking stick, and to bring nothing else: no bag, no bread, and no money in their belts.

Cause, you see, men don't carry purses.

I am kind of amped for the translation of "outdo one another in giving honor" and "live in harmony with one another" stuff from Romans, though.

i'm 100% sure they will translate this to mean those liberuls needs to get in line and stop dishonouring conservatives by disagreeing with them.

Benefits include:
* liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

for the record I fully support this effort of Phyllis Schlafly's son to "improve" the Bible.

Can't wait to see what happens to Matthew 6:6.

King James Version

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Proposed Conservative Translation

"No one can break into a well-armed man's house to destroy his property, unless he first tie the man down. Only then can he damage his home."

Do any of these translation dudes actually speak Greek or Hebrew? Cause super lolz if they're rewriting the Bible from an already exciting translation.

It might not have been THAT exciting, you see.

Haha. Meant to write existing, but exciting works too.

http://conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project#Examples

Conservapedia -
"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus

Real meaning - to murder or take up arms without sufficient justification

Animal Farm -
No animal shall kill any other animal

No animal shall kill any other animal without cause

New Term - homeschool
First Developed - 1980s
Potential Uses in a Bible Retranslation - relevant to Jesus teaching the younger Apostles

"Footnotes are a cowardly choice."

But Ann Coulter loves them!

New Term: media
First Developed: 1841
Potential Uses in a Bible Retranslation: relevant to prohibition against false idols

this website is a fantastic website

"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." John 1:16 (NIV)

"grace" has become a female name and a sports term to refer primarily to smoothness in style

Oh no! We cant have a Smoov Lord.

this website is a fantastic website

― waldo geraldo faldo (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, October 6, 2009 2:35 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol @ "grace has become a sports term"

Essay:Greatest Myths of American History

Here is a growing list of the greatest myths or falsehoods taught about American history:
that a "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]
that the Founding Fathers were deists
that Thomas Jefferson was the originator of the key concepts in the Declaration of Independence
that James Madison was the "father of the Constitution"
that the Constitution established a wall of separation between church and state
that government regulation brought American prosperity
that President FDR brought the United States out of the Great Depression
that President LBJ's Great Society alleviated poverty
that President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was not key to ending the Cold War.

It takes a certain amount of math knowhow to appreciate the awesome kookiness of this:

http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Elementary_proof

but I promise you guys there is really nothing better on the whole site.

The Schlafly:

"Complex analysis does rely on an assumption that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. It's a unique pair, obviously, and it's a sign of desperation that some above looked for a way to deny this."

Fundamentalism of any stripe is not a theology so much as a psychology.

eephus are you thinking of quaternions/octonions/etc? or just that he's completely ignoring what others are saying?

I'm baffled that they're discussing elementary proofs, and kinda scared since it's one of the topics that my research focuses on. I'm glad they didn't cite me! Wikipedia has an entry that's not much better; maybe the conservapedia people just pick topics that wikipedia has already? Although in thinking about elementary proofs one does quickly run into the notion of a conservative extension of a theory, so maybe that's the hook.

Ahh, science-related articles on Conservapedia. Last time I saw it - the site seems to be down for me now (maybe it got overloaded with people boggling at their translation project) - they had a page about how relativity was clearly bunk because it sounds a bit like moral relativism and liberals like that kind of thing.

eephus are you thinking of quaternions/octonions/etc? or just that he's completely ignoring what others are saying?

No, it's that AS insists complex analysis requires a unique square root of -1, and someone who knows more math than he does points out that actually there are two such square roots, and Schlafly comes back with "it's a unique pair!"

Admittedly, this is not the very deepest thing of the many things he's confused about on that page but it indicates his peculiar, rigid style -- he has a taste for using mathematical language ("unique," "elementary proof") in ways that are particular to him, then gets very angry when it's pointed out that his usage isn't standard, and typically ends up accusing the mathematical community of liberal bias; in this case, for defining "elementary proof" to mean something other than what, to Schlafly, it CAN ONLY mean.

Euler, I promise you that A-Schlaf does not know what a conservative extension of a theory is. I really hope he doesn't find out there's such a thing.

i and -i

rite?

"Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth"

http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

"why is transistor a conservative word?"

"The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the USSR. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value."

ah yes, ingenuity, that most ~conservative of traits

Yeah, but the transistor also played a central role in introducing me to liberal, hedonistic rock and roll, aka the devil's music.

I'm baffled that they're discussing elementary proofs, and kinda scared since it's one of the topics that my research focuses on. I'm glad they didn't cite me!

― Euler, Tuesday, October 6, 2009 2:51 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://www.conservapedia.com/Euler obv