Conservapedia: Re-Writing the Bible for the Rich

[Blarg]

That is probably true since it's in an encyclopedia

[BerenTebogo]

Atheism and Mass Murder
Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.

See main article: Atheism and Mass Murder

Well, my job is done here.

[kuronosan]

Yes, how dare those athiests kill people. Christians have never mass-killed anyone.

[Jaybar]

Christians? Running off to distant lands to murder and pillage? Not in my Bible.

For a rock.

[Nightplague]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that an absolute script to truth and justice that can be applied to every possible situation can be written down in a book. We live our lives and learn how to best get by as we progress, and we don't do things without reason. Sure, they wrote some rather clever things down in a book. Alot of it makes sense and is obvious to live by.

I've never read the bible as a whole, and I certainly don't need to do so in order to lead a good life. I will make mistakes from which I'll learn, and unless I need psychiatric help due to a screwed up head, I won't repeat the same ones over and over.

If some god can't accept a view of life that is not blindly focused by specific outlined rules, I don't see why anyone would submit to him/her/it/whatever.

Is he being jealous that his epeen is not getting stroked enough or does he just get a laugh out of (to quote an awesome dude called Bill Hicks "fucking with people"

[Faris]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that an absolute script to truth and justice that can be applied to every possible situation can be written down in a book. We live our lives and learn how to best get by as we progress, and we don't do things without reason. Sure, they wrote some rather clever things down in a book. Alot of it makes sense and is obvious to live by.

I've never read the bible as a whole, and I certainly don't need to do so in order to lead a good life. I will make mistakes from which I'll learn, and unless I need psychiatric help due to a screwed up head, I won't repeat the same ones over and over.

If some god can't accept a view of life that is not blindly focused by specific outlined rules, I don't see why anyone would submit to him/her/it/whatever.

Is he being jealous that his epeen is not getting stroked enough or does he just get a laugh out of (to quote an awesome dude called Bill Hicks "fucking with people"

blah blah blah

[Acturus]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that an absolute script to truth and justice that can be applied to every possible situation can be written down in a book. We live our lives and learn how to best get by as we progress, and we don't do things without reason. Sure, they wrote some rather clever things down in a book. Alot of it makes sense and is obvious to live by.

I've never read the bible as a whole, and I certainly don't need to do so in order to lead a good life. I will make mistakes from which I'll learn, and unless I need psychiatric help due to a screwed up head, I won't repeat the same ones over and over.

If some god can't accept a view of life that is not blindly focused by specific outlined rules, I don't see why anyone would submit to him/her/it/whatever.

Is he being jealous that his epeen is not getting stroked enough or does he just get a laugh out of (to quote an awesome dude called Bill Hicks "fucking with people"

Related video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmd83LIADnE

[aduidarnenye]

Scariness continues:

Virginity - Conservapedia

Virginity as a term is an expression of purity. It implies pure, unadulterated, chaste. A virgin is a person of either gender who has not had sex.

Some girls stay secretive about their Christianity and desire for virginity until marriage. Don’t be ashamed to let others know where you stand. Ask your youth pastor about signing a document proclaiming your purity commitment. Then tell others about it. Consider wearing a purity symbol such as a ring or special necklace — especially on dates. These have no special power, but they can remind you of your plan to remain sexually pure. What's Your Plan for Sexual Purity? by Elaine Creasman.

Virginity is respected and valued in many societies, especially female virginity, which is often interwoven with personal or family honor and patriarchy in some cultures. Some men place importance on a woman's virginity, especially in a prospective wife.

Sexual continence - Conservapedia

Sexual continence is abstaining from sexual actions until married, and remaining strictly faithful within marriage.

What's right is always smart, and always for your good. Sex is not just something you do—sex is someone you are. It is linked to the welfare of your whole person. [1]

"We are getting married anyway." - Great!! Then surely you must want to build your marriage on a foundation of obedience to the Lord and respect for one another. If you are a Christian and you love your spouse-to-be, you must want the best for him or her and following God's commands is always the best. A healthy Christian marriage consists of two people who are committed to obedience to Christ above all. God cannot bless sin so if you choose to build your marriage on sin rather than on obedience to Christ, you will reap the consequences of that sin rather than enjoy the blessings of God. [2]

In 1917, The American Medical Association passes a resolution declaring that "sexual continence is compatible with health and is the best prevention of venereal infections," and one of the methods for controlling syphilis is by controlling alcohol. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels prohibits the practice of distributing contraceptives to sailors bound on shore leave, and Congress passes laws setting up "dry and decent zones" around military camps. "Many barkeepers are fined for selling liquor to men in uniform. Only at Coney Island could soldiers and sailors change into the grateful anonymity of bathing suits and drink without molestation from patriotic passers-by." [3]

Too long to quote:

Contraception - Conservapedia


Condom promotion - Conservapedia

condom promotion is ineffective for anything but lowering the rate of AIDS in concentrated, high-risk groups, like homosexuals in San Francisco or prostitutes in Bangkok. Condoms have never been shown to reduce HIV infection rates and AIDS deaths in general-population epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa. Paradoxically, the more condoms AIDS activists send to Africa, the more widespread the disease has become. [1]

This is the best one:

Condom - Conservapedia

The condom has been promoted as a birth control device, as well as a means of helping to prevent venereal disease. It is not as effective as abstinence in either category, and a life-long monogamous relationship between partners who do not have venereal disease is superior to condom use as well. Condom use is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church which believes in other methods for birth control and abstinence outside of a marriage relationship.

Some government-supported programs to distribute condoms to teenagers have been credited with reducing out of wedlock teen pregnancy, but the success of these programs is debatable. Opponents charge that condom distribution is counterproductive, as it sends a tacit (but clearly perceived) message that pre-marital sex (and even fornication) is good.

Pope Benedict said, ""You can't resolve it (AIDS) with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."[1]

[Parshias]

I didn't read much of the article on atheism, but apparently I am an atheist because I don't believe in Zeus.

[aduidarnenye]

Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations - CNN.com

[Deftscythe]

holy shit, this just blew my mind.

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness - Conservapedia

1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
2. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
3. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
4. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
5. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
6. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
7. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
8. Do you think that there must be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
9. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
10. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
11. Do you think that evolution [2] must have occurred?
12. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
13. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?

You don't think it's possible light used to travel at a different speed? You closed-minded asshole!

[Ksandra]

If some god can't accept a view of life that is not blindly focused by specific outlined rules, I don't see why anyone would submit to him/her/it/whatever.

Is he being jealous that his epeen is not getting stroked enough or does he just get a laugh out of (to quote an awesome dude called Bill Hicks "fucking with people"

I love this kinda logic which isn't uncommon.

So if you don't like the way a God run things you think it's ok to just not believe in him and not follow him and he'll be what? "oh ok then you go do your thing and I'll just leave you alone"

It's like a baby thinking if they can't see daddy, daddy can't see him.

in other words, if you believe God exists and that he can have an angry temper, then yes even if you don't like the way he does certain things you're going to still follow him so you don't get punished.

[Cantih]

I love this kinda logic which isn't uncommon.

Well, granted most people don't think of it that hard, so you're generally right. But it depends on which exit valve a person believes leads out of the "Problem of Evil" paradox. You just described the worst case, wrathful exit. Where it would be dangerous to toe the line.

However, if you ascribe to the non-omnipotent or non-omniscient paradox exits, you CAN get away with turning your back on the matter.

The general lack of smitings going around points to a non-omnipotent (at least temporaly) god though.

[Ksandra]

Well, granted most people don't think of it that hard, so you're generally right. But it depends on which exit valve a person believes leads out of the "Problem of Evil" paradox. You just described the worst case, wrathful exit. Where it would be dangerous to toe the line.

However, if you ascribe to the non-omnipotent or non-omniscient paradox exits, you CAN get away with turning your back on the matter.

The general lack of smitings going around points to a non-omnipotent (at least temporaly) god though.

you are right, but the only counter to that is when people make these comments they usually are referring to the "common Gods" if you will.

i.e. They'll say to a Catholic "why would you believe in a God that makes all these rules!" In that context they aren't talking about a paradox exit, they are talking about that Catholic's God. If the Catholic believes their God exists then yes they're going to follow him because they know what happens if they don't. They can't just turn their backs and say "I don't like you so I won't follow you!" and expect that magically nothing will happen even though He still exists (if He does)


As to lack of smiting I have my own thoughts on that but they aren't widely assumed and I don't have anything to back it up, just my gut feeling, that we are in an age where God somewhat "gave up". In the Old Testament God was very angry, and demanded complete obedience or be punished severely. In the New Testament he gave Jesus as a different approach. He let Jesus take in the sins and sacrifice himself to save us all. Almost, like rather than blaming us, he found a peaceful way to try and get people to be good.


Obviously didn't work or didn't last to his satisfaction, and I get the feeling now hes taken a backseat approach, and only deals with smaller issues to those he feels deserves it (both good and bad). For the most part our punishments/rewards will happen now after we die rather than during life.

Of course, I could definitely be wrong on all of this, but it makes sense to me at least lol.

[Acturus]

As to lack of smiting I have my own thoughts on that but they aren't widely assumed and I don't have anything to back it up, just my gut feeling, that we are in an age where God somewhat "gave up". In the Old Testament God was very angry, and demanded complete obedience or be punished severely. In the New Testament he gave Jesus as a different approach. He let Jesus take in the sins and sacrifice himself to save us all. Almost, like rather than blaming us, he found a peaceful way to try and get people to be good.


Obviously didn't work or didn't last to his satisfaction, and I get the feeling now hes taken a backseat approach, and only deals with smaller issues to those he feels deserves it (both good and bad). For the most part our punishments/rewards will happen now after we die rather than during life.

Of course, I could definitely be wrong on all of this, but it makes sense to me at least lol.

Purely to disagree with you, but with this belief, it would seem that God has a terribly short attention span.

[Kryssan]

Well, granted most people don't think.

Fixed it for you.

[Ksandra]

Purely to disagree with you, but with this belief, it would seem that God has a terribly short attention span.

Wouldn't surprise me actually.

[Zilong]

I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent, eternally-existing god would just throw in the towel and take the backseat approach after only few thousand years of his creation not doing what he wanted them to do, especially if he loves human half as much as the new testament supposedly described.

On the other hand, the old testament god is just a flat out asshole, and I pity anyone who are actually subservient to him (loljew)

[Gunitsoldier]

I'm sure the post you just made is also a nice contribution. God loves you too.

I made a post containing my opinion on the page before already idiot. I hate some annoying people on BG but god damn you actually get me mad when I see you post, congrats on that.

[Ksandra]

I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent, eternally-existing god would just throw in the towel and take the backseat approach after only few thousand years of his creation not doing what he wanted them to do, especially if he loves human half as much as the new testament supposedly described.

On the other hand, the old testament god is just a flat out asshole, and I pity anyone who are actually subservient to him (loljew)

eh like I said it's a gut feeling, I could definitely be wrong, but to me something definitely changed, that's just makes me feel what happened.