From everybody's favorite "Trustworthy" Encyclopedia.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
QuoteLiberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
:horrormirth: It's like they are parodying themselves now.
"It would be more accurate to update the King James version than to work from older texts."
\
:oilpig:
:mccain:
:cramstipated:
:facepalm:
Isn't there a commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain (ie, saying that he said things that he didn't say)?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 06:50:52 PM
Isn't there a commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain (ie, saying that he said things that he didn't say)?
Not once they're done!
Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on October 05, 2009, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 06:50:52 PM
Isn't there a commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain (ie, saying that he said things that he didn't say)?
Not once they're done!
:lulz:
Quote10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Right, because God doesn't want us to use His Name... even though he gave it to us. I much prefer being called Mister, Man or Senior Data Security Analyst rather than 'Clyde'. Esp from people hoping to have a personal relationship with me.
Of course, what is really funny is that in the KJV "Lord" never refers to God/YHVY. God/YHVH is always noted as LORD (or in four places 'Jehovah'). Lord is used in the bible to refer to human rulers like David and as a term for Jesus. Jesus and humans are never "LORD" and God is never "Lord". The reason this difference exists in the KJV is because the difference exists in the historical manuscripts using the Tetragrammaton or other identifier to differentiate between the Supreme Being and others.
Not to mention that Hell as a burning place of fiery torment s not supported in the Bible unless you misread several passages.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 05, 2009, 06:59:44 PM
Quote10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Right, because God doesn't want us to use His Name... even though he gave it to us. I much prefer being called Mister, Man or Senior Data Security Analyst rather than 'Clyde'. Esp from people hoping to have a personal relationship with me.
Of course, what is really funny is that in the KJV "Lord" never refers to God/YHVY. God/YHVH is always noted as LORD (or in four places 'Jehovah'). Lord is used in the bible to refer to human rulers like David and as a term for Jesus. Jesus and humans are never "LORD" and God is never "Lord". The reason this difference exists in the KJV is because the difference exists in the historical manuscripts using the Tetragrammaton or other identifier to differentiate between the Supreme Being and others.
Not to mention that Hell as a burning place of fiery torment s not supported in the Bible unless you misread several passages.
:horrormirth:
The way I read it, it's "eternal death", ie, the cessation of existence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 06:50:52 PM
Isn't there a commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain (ie, saying that he said things that he didn't say)?
Saying he said thing he didn't say.
Saying conclusions apply when the hypotheses aren't true in a given case.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 05, 2009, 06:59:44 PM
Quote10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Right, because God doesn't want us to use His Name... even though he gave it to us. I much prefer being called Mister, Man or Senior Data Security Analyst rather than 'Clyde'. Esp from people hoping to have a personal relationship with me.
Of course, what is really funny is that in the KJV "Lord" never refers to God/YHVY. God/YHVH is always noted as LORD (or in four places 'Jehovah'). Lord is used in the bible to refer to human rulers like David and as a term for Jesus. Jesus and humans are never "LORD" and God is never "Lord". The reason this difference exists in the KJV is because the difference exists in the historical manuscripts using the Tetragrammaton or other identifier to differentiate between the Supreme Being and others.
Not to mention that Hell as a burning place of fiery torment s not supported in the Bible unless you misread several passages.
:horrormirth:
The way I read it, it's "eternal death", ie, the cessation of existence.
Since the Hebrews did not believe in an immortal soul, YOU ARE CORRECT!
Solomon stated that 'The Dead are conscious of nothing', that they 'return to the dust'. In Revelation after the final battle "Death and Hell" are thrown into the "Lake of Fire" which symbolizes Death and the Grave being destroyed forever... not eternal torment.
The concept of Hell as fiery torment didn't become official doctribe until the Nicene Council.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 05, 2009, 06:59:44 PM
Quote10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Right, because God doesn't want us to use His Name... even though he gave it to us. I much prefer being called Mister, Man or Senior Data Security Analyst rather than 'Clyde'. Esp from people hoping to have a personal relationship with me.
Of course, what is really funny is that in the KJV "Lord" never refers to God/YHVY. God/YHVH is always noted as LORD (or in four places 'Jehovah'). Lord is used in the bible to refer to human rulers like David and as a term for Jesus. Jesus and humans are never "LORD" and God is never "Lord". The reason this difference exists in the KJV is because the difference exists in the historical manuscripts using the Tetragrammaton or other identifier to differentiate between the Supreme Being and others.
Not to mention that Hell as a burning place of fiery torment s not supported in the Bible unless you misread several passages.
:horrormirth:
The way I read it, it's "eternal death", ie, the cessation of existence.
Actually, that's standard death. The dead may be resurrected, but there's no particular anything for everybody in the meantime.
Like the Greek shades, they might as well be on tape backup.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 05, 2009, 06:08:52 PM:horrormirth:
Why the :horrormirth: ? This seems like pure :lulz: to me.
"How conservative are we? We're so conservative that we're going to radically alter our own holy text to make it say what we want it to say."
I wonder if they are aware that there is already a Bible translation called A Conservative Version (http://www.stillvoices.org/) (ACV). Of course, it's conservative in translation philosophy rather than being rewritten to espouse neo-conservative political bias, so it wouldn't suit conservapedia's needs.
Quote from: yhnmzw on October 05, 2009, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 05, 2009, 06:59:44 PM
Quote10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Right, because God doesn't want us to use His Name... even though he gave it to us. I much prefer being called Mister, Man or Senior Data Security Analyst rather than 'Clyde'. Esp from people hoping to have a personal relationship with me.
Of course, what is really funny is that in the KJV "Lord" never refers to God/YHVY. God/YHVH is always noted as LORD (or in four places 'Jehovah'). Lord is used in the bible to refer to human rulers like David and as a term for Jesus. Jesus and humans are never "LORD" and God is never "Lord". The reason this difference exists in the KJV is because the difference exists in the historical manuscripts using the Tetragrammaton or other identifier to differentiate between the Supreme Being and others.
Not to mention that Hell as a burning place of fiery torment s not supported in the Bible unless you misread several passages.
:horrormirth:
The way I read it, it's "eternal death", ie, the cessation of existence.
Actually, that's standard death. The dead may be resurrected, but there's no particular anything for everybody in the meantime.
Like the Greek shades, they might as well be on tape backup.
Yes, the Christian Greek Scriptures introduced the idea of Second Death. Which was you're dead, but God will ressurect you, judge you and then maybe kill you again forever.
God is kinda wishy washy sometimes.
The Movement is becoming more Stalinist every day.
Not content with rewriting history, science and philosophy for their own benefit, they are now going to alter one of their supposedly foundational texts, because it doesn't match up to what they promote, instead of perhaps rethinking their basic assumptions.
So are they going to recast all of the characters as old white guys?
One of my first headsplody moments on the internets was an xtian who was somehow convinced that there was only one bible, and it was in english, and it was perfect recording of Christ's exact words.
Quote from: LMNO on October 05, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
One of my first headsplody moments on the internets was an xtian who was somehow convinced that there was only one bible, and it was in english, and it was perfect.
I met those people at the door when I was like 8.
"My Wife reads the original Bible every night. We don't need none of your interpretations!"
My Dad: "Oh, she can read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?"
"Err, Yea... *door slams shut*"
My Dad:(walking away) She probably looked at the Bible and said "Well, its all Greek to me!"
Quote from: LMNO on October 05, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
One of my first headsplody moments on the internets was an xtian who was somehow convinced that there was only one bible, and it was in english, and it was perfect recording of Christ's exact words.
Calvary Baptist Church, in Illinois. They also maintain that Christ was milky-white, and that he wasn't Jewish.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 05, 2009, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 05, 2009, 07:40:03 PM
One of my first headsplody moments on the internets was an xtian who was somehow convinced that there was only one bible, and it was in english, and it was perfect recording of Christ's exact words.
Calvary Baptist Church, in Illinois. They also maintain that Christ was milky-white, and that he wasn't Jewish.
Course he weren't Jewish! Them dagburnt Jews were the ones whut killt im!
At least thats what I have heard from some of the yokel preachers in the area.
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
Of my God, they're SERIOUS! :lulz:
And Palin is in the pic! Lower left quadrant.
This must be WOMPed.
I heard about this a couple of days ago but I didn't take it serious cause I literally thought it was a joke, or a parody or something
:lulz:
Ironically I support making your own holy books.... and it'll be twice as funny when they claim the bible is errorless
:lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
:spittake:
I can't even begin to count to historical inaccuracies in that
LOOK! FUCKING PALIN IS IN THERE!
OH GOD I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING
I can't stop giggling
:lulz:
That is going to make me smile all day
There is no way to improve that painting
That is pure perfection there
:lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
No surprise at how prominent Ronald Reagan is in that picture.
Also, why does the artist use a soldier to signify Martin Luther King Jr. instead of Martin Luther King Jr?
Also, also they talk about how there are 50 stars to signify the 50 states but that "some shine brighter than others..."
So which ones are the good states and which ones are the bad states?
Has anyone noticed the "interactive" part yet?
Try rolling your mouse over the different people in the picture.
Yeah, and I guess the Palin-looking person is supposed to be a School Teacher. But I highly doubt the resemblence is accidental.
I wonder if they actually did any research to find out what these people actually believed in accordance to religion and the state....
actually I don't wonder....
I kind of already know
:sad:
Oh my god, are those Liberals in the lower right corner? One of them is counting money... :lulz:
Jesus is very Celtic looking, reinforcing the well-known fact that Scotland is the birthplace of Christianity.
The funny one is read the looooong rant against the professor....
:lulz:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on October 06, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
The funny one is read the looooong rant against the professor....
:lulz:
he wrote more on that then on Jesus
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on October 06, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
The funny one is read the looooong rant against the professor....
:lulz:
He could have saved a lot of space just by saying "SMART PEOPLE ARE OF THE DEVIL!!!!"
:lulz: I just noticed the pieces of paper on the steps in front of the Supreme Court Justice. Apparently Marbury v. Madison was a horrible decision that caused us to have activist judges.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on October 06, 2009, 06:07:23 PM
I wonder if they actually did any research to find out what these people actually believed in accordance to religion and the state....
actually I don't wonder....
I kind of already know
:sad:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 06:16:51 PM
:lulz: I just noticed the pieces of paper on the steps in front of the Supreme Court Justice. Apparently Marbury v. Madison was a horrible decision that caused us to have activist judges.
Yeah, just noticed that. Those papers represent the court decisions that are the reason the supreme court judge "hides his face in shame".
I like how when you right-click on it to save it locally, it pops up an alert letting you know ...
Quote:argh!: The images on this site are copyrighted! :argh!:
... but all you have to do is File -> Save As -> Web Page Complete to download it.
The page won't even let you highlight and copy text from the page. Talk about being protective. I guess that's to keep the evil liberal bastards from spreading their message of fail love.
Ahahaha, look to the right of Mr. Hollywood :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Link is dead for me?
Obviously because you're not American and therefore don't deserve to see such a glorious piece of art.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 06, 2009, 07:32:28 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 06:16:51 PM
:lulz: I just noticed the pieces of paper on the steps in front of the Supreme Court Justice. Apparently Marbury v. Madison was a horrible decision that caused us to have activist judges.
Yeah, just noticed that. Those papers represent the court decisions that are the reason the supreme court judge "hides his face in shame".
Notice that Kelo vs. New London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) is in those papers too. Pretty ironic since 1) Most people on both sides of the aisle consider it a very shitty decision and 2) that was one of the times that the court should have been activists and weren't. :argh!: It pisses me off that the developers have done nothing with that land after stealing it away.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
LOOK! FUCKING PALIN IS IN THERE!
OH GOD I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING
you'll like this roger
its a few months old so you may have already seen it already, but Vanity Fair went over Palin's resignation speech and fixed all the mistakes...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
This should win the horrormirth contest. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
(http://i470.photobucket.com/albums/rr70/AidanGriff/Pregnantwomen.jpg?t=1254878045)
LOLWUT?
Quote from: Sir Remington III on October 06, 2009, 07:54:19 PM
Ahahaha, look to the right of Mr. Hollywood :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: I didn't even notice that before, lol. Poor Satan doesn't even get a little blurb because they're too busy describing the evils of being a college professor :(
The talk pages concerning the Conservapedia Bible are pretty funny. I liked this one here where they discussed, but alas ultimately decided against, replacing "Pharisees" with "liberal elites". hxxp://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Gospel_of_Mark_(Translated)#.22Self-Proclaimed_Elite.22
:lulz:
#8 is the one I find the most interesting. They want to bowdlerize it.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 08, 2009, 11:16:50 PM
The talk pages concerning the Conservapedia Bible are pretty funny. I liked this one here where they discussed, but alas ultimately decided against, replacing "Pharisees" with "liberal elites". hxxp://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Gospel_of_Mark_(Translated)#.22Self-Proclaimed_Elite.22
:lulz:
Weren't the Pharisees religious conservatives? :lol:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 06, 2009, 04:27:39 PM
In related news, BEHOLD REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!!
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
HAW HAW! HOW DID I MISS THIS!
Notice the shamed Northern civil war soldier. :lulz:
I kindof want a print of it, the big mural sized one, to scare the hell out of my neighbors with (and to figure out which ones to eat first when the time comes). Too bad its so expensive.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 02:47:30 AMToo bad its so expensive.
Copy the image to a flash drive, take it to Kinko's, and print it on poster paper.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 09, 2009, 03:07:13 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 02:47:30 AMToo bad its so expensive.
Copy the image to a flash drive, take it to Kinko's, and print it on poster paper.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/mcnaughton1.jpg)
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 09, 2009, 03:07:13 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 02:47:30 AMToo bad its so expensive.
Copy the image to a flash drive, take it to Kinko's, and print it on poster paper.
That would get me a small print, the resolution on the digital isn't high enough for the glorius mural I want.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 03:23:20 AM
Oh. Hell. Yes.
You need to post a pic for this sort of shit.
going to dig through spagbook in a sec, and do my first womp.
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/one_nation_under_Roger_002.jpg)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 04:07:08 AM
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/one_nation_under_Roger_002.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 04:07:08 AM
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/one_nation_under_Roger_002.jpg)
:lulz: I love what you did with the lower right hand corner. Very good choices. You should have used McCain for the politician, Chuck Norris for Mr. Hollywood and Casey Luskin for the lawyer.
I couldn't pic a politician to eat first. I'm going to womp a bunch of the being stuffed into a blender if I don't forget.
Also I just found this.
http://k.photos.cx/4af30b04985f54dc58bd8641e547a042f1f08275-153.jpg
hxxp://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton Fine Art.htm
And this, from a former acquaintance of mine who went nuts after a birther tried to chew him out for talking about politics in his own comic.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 05:40:41 AM
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
And this, from a former acquaintance of mine who went nuts after a birther tried to chew him out for talking about politics in his own comic.
:mittens: Now that is how it is done. He makes a good point that the school teacher and family doctor are seen as super good while the professor is the most evil thing ever. Who wants to bet that the guy who painted the original flunked out of college?
He probably went to a Christian college.
The teacher thing is some sort of weird disconnect over the evolution in schools thing. According the the Movement types (back when I still thought it was useful to talk to them), teachers clearly want to teach the bible and creationism in schools, and the school administrators and college professors are stopping them and worshiping either Darwin or monkeys in secret (I wish I was making this up). Never mind that case history clearly shows administrators trying to force science teachers not to teach evolution and the other way around.
It's not acceptable to question the people the movement sees as critical to its success: schoolteachers, cops and the military. If something is wrong it is clearly the fault of their bosses, or you rant about how the wrong sort of people (usually gays, sometimes liberals) are trying to join those professions.
It occurs to me the uproar from the movement if Don't Ask Don't Tell really goes away will be truly hilarious.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 06:24:52 AM
He probably went to a Christian college.
The teacher thing is some sort of weird disconnect over the evolution in schools thing. According the the Movement types (back when I still thought it was useful to talk to them), teachers clearly want to teach the bible and creationism in schools, and the school administrators and college professors are stopping them and worshiping either Darwin or monkeys in secret (I wish I was making this up). Never mind that case history clearly shows administrators trying to force science teachers not to teach evolution and the other way around.
It's not acceptable to question the people the movement sees as critical to its success: schoolteachers, cops and the military. If something is wrong it is clearly the fault of their bosses, or you rant about how the wrong sort of people (usually gays, sometimes liberals) are trying to join those professions.
Makes sense, I guess. Teachers and doctors are seen as smart but not "too smart for their own good". Professors are seen as evil bullies because they have a habit of proving how wrong the fundies are.
QuoteIt occurs to me the uproar from the movement if Don't Ask Don't Tell really goes away will be truly hilarious.
:lulz: They are currently going ballistic over the fact that the sexual orientation hate crime legislation got slipped into the defense appropriation bill. They are also pissed that Obama is going to address the Human Rights Coalition this weekend. If he manages to get rid of DADT within the next year or so... well, be ready for some fireworks.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 05:38:37 AM
I couldn't pic a politician to eat first. I'm going to womp a bunch of the being stuffed into a blender if I don't forget.
Also I just found this.
http://k.photos.cx/4af30b04985f54dc58bd8641e547a042f1f08275-153.jpg
:mittens:
YES.
Good finds, Requia☣, those are awesome.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 05:38:37 AM
I couldn't pic a politician to eat first. I'm going to womp a bunch of the being stuffed into a blender if I don't forget.
Also I just found this.
http://k.photos.cx/4af30b04985f54dc58bd8641e547a042f1f08275-153.jpg
Woah, kickass! And howcome I never EVER make it into these here WOMPs?
:mittens: :mittens: :mittens:
:lulz: :mittens: :lulz:
OMG THAT'S INCREDIBLE
The most ironic thing for me is Jefferson being in that painting.
Also Washington (thought communion was blasphemy), Lincoln (deist), Adams (Unitarian), Franklin (claimed to be whatever was popular at the moment).
Of the founding father types there are apparently two orthodox Christians way in the back.
And Thomas Paine.
Requia, that is an awesome find!
The thing I like best about fundies is the blind "lalalalala-I-can't-hear-you!" mode they go into when you point those people's beliefs out. Their heads start to bulge amusingly.
Nah, my favorite is the way they start to project their own motives onto me. Apparently I'm trying to revise history in order to support an atheist agenda (you would think the revised atheist history would have less unitarians & deists).