You must log in or register to comment.
Why is the Tennessee GOP praising Infamous Liberal Adolf Hitler then?
Why do they have to label this “trustworthy”? Oh, it’s like “Truth” Social.
Conservapedia is absolutely wacky.
The curator, one Andrew Schlafly, once tried to write a new, improved, “more conservative” version of the Bible. But, Mr. Schlafly is neither a historian nor a linguistic scholar, and he couldn’t consult the source texts. So, his way of “correcting the liberal bias” found in modern translations of the Bible was just to change the words in a modern English translation (probably the 1611 KJV) to better fit his politics.
One of the changes I remember reading about was altering the words in The Beatitudes to be things like, “Blessed are the managers, for they provide for their employees,” and such. He also deleted parts he didn’t agree with, like removing one of Jesus’ utterances from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” According to Schlafly, Jesus’ executioners knew exactly what they were doing and thus shouldn’t have been forgiven.
Imagine changing the Bible version of Jesus to supply side Jesus unironically. I swear my ribs hurt from laughing at the OP and your comment, thank you, I needed that.
Isn’t revising the Bible in this fashion, you know, heresy? Wouldn’t churches disapprove of this?
Most Christian churches would probably consider it so, but I doubt any would do anything about it beyond writing an open letter
In an academic sense, no, revising the Bible is not heresy (though some branches of Christianity will call you a heretic for it anyhow). Every time one sect or another of Christianity wants to put out a new translation, they will also consider some revisions based on things like newly discovered manuscripts or breakthroughs in ancient linguistics.
That was not what Mr. Schlafly was doing, though. He was taking an already existing English translation of the Bible and rewording it to suit his politics. As such, yes, it would definitely be considered heresy by some people. In fact, his harshest critics were other conservative Christians, especially those with actual academic credentials in the field of Biblical Studies.
According to revelations it can literally get you removed from the book of life.
For years I thought this website was a parody of conservatives! You can’t be telling me that someone actually, genuinely, believes this shit!
It seems outrageous, but either they really believe their own nonsense, or it’s one of the longest and most convincing trolling campaigns ever waged.
My vote is that it’s 100% sincere. One of Andrew Schlafly’s other misadventures involved harassing the head of a microbiology research team because they had shown evolution in bacteria in a laboratory. Sending formal emails to this one specific scientist seems well outside what someone who was just in it for the laughs would do.
It started off as sincere, but the minute it launched Poe’s law ate it.
Holy shit that is hilarious.
Not really a fan of RationalWiki, but they seem to have a decent writeup and their examples are killing me:
KJV Luke 11:53-4
And as he [Jesus] said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
“Conservative Bible” Luke 11:53-4
As Jesus told them off, the scribes and Pharisees furiously interrogated Him about everything, plotting and seeking to quote Him for a politically incorrect remark to use against Him.
KJV Luke 12:43-4
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Conservative Bible
Blessed is that manager, whose employer finds working so diligently. Truly I tell you, he will promote that manager to run all of his affairs.
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Conservative Bible
In any case, Christ didn’t send me to baptize. He sent me to preach the gospel, but not with the kind of liberal claptrap that would make Christ’s sacrifice ineffectual.
I’m fucking rolling.
Yah, chronicling the shenanigans at Conservapedia is one of RW’s strong points.
Phyllis Schlafly was a fucking cancer
wtf
As far as I know Conservapedia was abandoned by its original creators and became satirical overtime, at least I think it did.
There’s three types of liberal:
- politically liberal (means you can say what you want)
- economically liberal (means your company can do what it wants)
- socially liberal (means you can love who you want)
typically, it’s important to distinguish which types we’re talking about. An economic-liberal is sometimes also called a neo-liberal, and does typically not help social wellbeing.
The Fascists have been burning this country down since Reagan.
The Neoliberals have been refilling their flamethrowers.
The United States has no major party that protects the people from the oligarch capitalist’s greed. Trump isn’t the cause of that, merely a symptom of it. Without the Kemp/Reagan trickle down grift, and it’s furtherance by both parties ever since in exchange for bribes, Donnie would still be wasting daddy’s money on real estate scams.
See, to the informed, liberal means someone who follows the liberal capitalist school of thought, typically associated with the Austrian school.
To absolute fucking morons, it means “people I have been told I don’t like”
This is why constructive conversation is tough
I mean, liberal, in broad definition, means a person believing in liberalism - that the liberty of people should not be infringed unless it’s absolutely necessary (like you can forfeit your right to liberty if you kill someone or steal something)
and that doesn’t include Joseph Stalin
It doesn’t include Hitler either; I am not stating it does. I am a liberal however one that supports more left wing policies (like pro minorities policies like ban of conversation therapy, equal marriage and easying the procedures for transitioning, as well as supporting union rights, strong social nets, welfare and strong safety regulations and worker rights) while believing that the state should justify all intrusion of personal liberty and keep some sort of reasonably regulated, yet free market in place.
The free market is a alright enough default when efficiency is desired, but the government needs to take a more permanent active role. That would fit under safety regulations, but with an expanded understanding to correct for long term externalities.
The expectation under liberalism seems to be that business activity is a right, so every intrusion by the government must be justified. I don’t think business activities should be thought of as rights, only the ability to earn a living and be happy. Business rights and personal rights will inevitably come into conflict, and personal rights often lose. We need to make business exist for people, or people will exist for business. Business actions must be justified by how they serve us, just like government actions. Neither are people
No, personal liberty takes precedent over economic liberty. Full stop. The machine works for all the people or for none of them
You would think, but not under the current system
Well okay yes, also a totally fair interpretation, but still very much in contrast to “people I don’t like” at the end of the day
to the informed, liberal means someone who follows the liberal capitalist school of thought
Not really. It’s more about personal and societal liberty than capitalism. If you are “economically liberal” then you are a republican
God i wish Jim Davis was a homosexual communist
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
- The Sith Code, as rewritten by Conservatives cca. 2025
Maher is famously not such.
Maher is a narcissistic asshole that, like all narcissistic assholes, leans in whatever direction will give him the most attention.
It’s amazing how people were convinced that a Libertarian was a liberal just because he didn’t like George W bush.
Wikipedia for ignorant people
2008 called, they want to know if you still listen to Paper Planes by M.I.A. and if Ron Paul ever became president.
