Conservapædia's new project and theology

Conservapædia has a new project.

So what to do? When your claim of godly authority rests on your interpretation of God’s holy word, but God’s holy words contradict your desired ends, you’re in a bit of a pickle. There is a solution, though: rewrite the Bible and change the liberal bits! For this reason some of the deranged editors at Conservapædia have launched The Conservative Bible Project, which will purge the wimpy stuff and return it to it’s authentic roots, as a book that could have been written by a dumb-as-a-stick American Republican NRA member who wants to kill communists and A-rabs.

Of course, such a project has been met with much criticism. But, as always, rather than defend themselves, the people at Conservapædia just whine and point at some red herring they find objectionable.

A year ago Time magazine’s David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed “green references” in “a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus.” But wait, there’s more, The Green Bible also includes “supplementary writings” several of which “cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity ‘dominion’ over the earth” and “Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus’ call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains.”

Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom “agreed that ‘stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'” might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.

Unfortunately for Conservapædia and the author of this criticism, Ken Shepherd, there is no way to internally resolve any theological conflict within any holy text that isn’t trivial. The only method for fixing the guessmanship in these books is to turn to external source, the primary of which is science.

Advertisements

Conservapædia’s new project and theology

Conservapædia has a new project.

So what to do? When your claim of godly authority rests on your interpretation of God’s holy word, but God’s holy words contradict your desired ends, you’re in a bit of a pickle. There is a solution, though: rewrite the Bible and change the liberal bits! For this reason some of the deranged editors at Conservapædia have launched The Conservative Bible Project, which will purge the wimpy stuff and return it to it’s authentic roots, as a book that could have been written by a dumb-as-a-stick American Republican NRA member who wants to kill communists and A-rabs.

Of course, such a project has been met with much criticism. But, as always, rather than defend themselves, the people at Conservapædia just whine and point at some red herring they find objectionable.

A year ago Time magazine’s David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed “green references” in “a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus.” But wait, there’s more, The Green Bible also includes “supplementary writings” several of which “cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity ‘dominion’ over the earth” and “Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus’ call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains.”

Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom “agreed that ‘stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'” might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.

Unfortunately for Conservapædia and the author of this criticism, Ken Shepherd, there is no way to internally resolve any theological conflict within any holy text that isn’t trivial. The only method for fixing the guessmanship in these books is to turn to external source, the primary of which is science.

Oh, this "news"paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

Oh, this “news”paper

So the Kennebec Journal has been advertising for certain political positions lately. This hasn’t come in the form of regular ad space, but by a devotion of front page space.

A little while ago the editor, Richard Connor, printed an article advertising a political strategy for pro-bigots on the front page. This was done when Obama had just given a widely-anticipated speech on health care. After multiple opinion pieces printed by the KJ by its editors saying Obama needed to make his positions known, his speech found itself on page A3. There are two possibilities: Connor is a dumb editor who does not have a basic ability to recognize front page news or – and here’s where my money is – he’s a hack who wants to use a newspaper to prop up his particular views.

A couple days later, he followed up. The article said nothing other than “We had a meeting and decided we still hate da gays”. Not long after that, Connor, hack extraordinaire, advertised an anti-abortion rally.

Now there’s yet another article. In today’s paper, he advertised some rhetoric from the bigots. It was all about how proponents of same-sex marriage are utilizing outside resources to help with their campaign. The sub-headline said something to the effect of “People from away are helping with the campaign”. I would quote that directly, but I do not waste my money on rags, so I don’t have a copy of the paper on hand. But how about a link? Well, sir, I cannot find it. The KJ is not featuring this article on its website, despite the decision to put it on the front page of today’s paper. But I can tell you that the Vassalboro boat ramp will be closed. Because that’s important.

My favorite part of this is that this is the exact rhetoric used by the bigots. Both sides are guilty of it, actually, but the bigots seem to be more aggressive with their tactics. “From away” is a Maine phrase which means anyone who isn’t from Maine. In this context, it is designed to alienate the opposition from voters. It’s an unsubstantial ploy to woo their votes. Who really sits at home and says, “Hmm, people from out of state are trying to persuade me. Yeah, all right, voting just to spite them is a good idea”? Come on.

The kicker to all this is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that the KJ had an article which noted, simply, that both sides are getting outside funds. I guess Connor forgot about that when he decided to get hung up in all his campaigning.

Ignorance is not a crime

The only wonderful thing about creationism is that it is based upon ignorance. That is something which can be remedied with a good bout of education to the brain.

So in this vain, I am happy to confess to my ignorance about the Shroud of Turin. I’ve always known what it was purported to be; it is not there that my ignorance lies. It is in the fact that so many people actually believe it is an imprint of the face of Jesus. Such religious lunacy doesn’t surprise me, but I was hardly aware of the value people placed in a raggedy Medieval piece of cloth.

Now it looks like the 13th century creation has been recreated in the 21st century.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

For the rational, this long-closed case just has another nail in its coffin. But we aren’t all rational, are we?

Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings. “If they don’t want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world’s best laboratories they certainly won’t believe me,” he said.