I was reading the paper today and there was an article about something called "Conservapedia" - I never heard of it before. It's designed to be a "encyclopedia written from a conservative viewpoint". I checked the site out and one of their requirements for articles is - - When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. - - Not surprisingly, this site was started by Phyllis Schlafly's son.
Thoughts on this?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
2007-06-25 13:25:58 · 22 answers · asked by ReeRee 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This is NOT a parody site. It is 100% legit. For a good laugh, check out the "psychological analysis" of Hillary Clinton on her entry, though.
2007-06-25 13:32:33 · update #1
They also claim that all people alive today are descendants of Noah....
2007-06-25 13:33:40 · update #2
I did not follow the link. I don't want my computer to develop bad habits.
From what you have told us, they have a rather odd definition of "conservative." That is, I'd always thought the term was mostly an economic one, and this seems to be assuming it means a fundamentalist Christian perspective.
2007-06-25 14:48:42 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It did always seem a little funny to me that BCE and CE are attempts to ignore the actual connection to the approximate birth of Jesus (like the elephant in the room). But on the other hand, people may be just as annoyed to be writing initials for Christ and "Our Lord," and I can't argue with that.
Really, I don't care all that much either way (and I am not a Christian). BCE and CE work fine for me, if that's what people want to use.
2007-06-25 20:32:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conservapedia is either written by sociopathic lunatics or brilliant parody.
Cripes, I hope it's parody.
*EDIT* Are you sure it's not a parody? I first saw this a few months ago and have been wondering ever since. If it's not a parody, I put conservapedia in the same neighborhood as Westboro Baptist.
2007-06-25 20:30:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's just like those folks who opened up their own little biology museum using Dinosaurs and saying that Noah did include the Dinosaurs on the Ark. The creepy thing is that these people are starting to build up their own little world of pseudo-science that will soon start actively competing with the real sciences.
I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!
2007-06-25 20:30:38 · answer #4 · answered by ♥Satan♥Lord♥of♥Flames♥ 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Wow! Alot of material to go over, but well worth the time to make an honest evaluation of the whole basis...thanks for the info and I will definitly study this new concept.
2007-06-25 20:34:20 · answer #5 · answered by kanarain 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most dates were given in AD and BC for centuries. Since the existance of Jesus is a proven fact (his status as savior is the constrovertial part), why not use them as a reference?
2007-06-25 20:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by Curtis B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't stop them but reputable companies would not publish such a book as 'fact'. All it does is merely take truths and twist it so that it is unrecognizable to the average person. Kirk Cameron should love it.
2007-06-25 20:30:42 · answer #7 · answered by genaddt 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do they claim
Calenders are based on Christian
B.C for Before Christ
and
A.D for After Dead
So their Christ died 2007 years ago huh.
2007-06-25 20:42:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be accurate. Guess that's going out the window.
2007-06-25 20:29:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Remember academia is out to "poo poo" any authenticity in the bible. It constantly bucks against it and kicks up it's heels against it! Even Jesus said that, of course in a more wise and deep way not the way I just put it but he does say it.
2007-06-25 20:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋