Archive for the 'Fun Facts' Category

Column 12 (Special Fun Fact edition): Mocking Christ

Did you know…

…that the people who mocked Christ during the Passion were liberals? It’s true!

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.–Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT) [Columnist’s emphasis]

This admittedly, is a somewhat controversial statement, and sure enough, it did lead User:HardDisc to question the underlying assumption (which, incidentally, earned him a perma-ban):

[…]The Pharisees and Sadducees were extremely conservative. So were the Romans – nationalists if you ever saw one. Is this — *gasp* — a conservative falsehood, or an example of conservative deceit? —HardDisc 19:49, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

This led to a brief discussion on just who were the good guys conservatives in 1st century AD Jewish society, which ended with the following statement by mr. Schlafly:

Very interesting, Fox. Thank you. I might add that there is no evidence of the Pharisees or Sadducees mocking Jesus, which was the premise of the complaint by HardDisc above.–Aschlafly 18:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Whoa. Full stop. As we all know, mr. Schlafly is a man who takes his Bible very seriously. And I mean very seriously. With that in mind, can it really be the case that he does not know of Luke 22:63-65?

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Or Luke 23:11?

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Not to mention Luke 23:35?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Or Mark 15:29-32?

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Admittedly, not all of these are clearly identified as Pharisees or Sadducees. However, given the prominent position of these groups in Jewish society at the time, some of them almost certainly are, especially rulers and chief priests mentioned in Luke 23:35 and Mark 15:31.

This raises a dilemma. Is it possible that biblical literalist like mr. Schlafly is unaware of key parts of the Gospels? Or is it possible that he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda? Either seems unfathomable. This is a mystery to me.

However, all this still doesn’t really answer the question: Just who were the liberals who mocked Christ? Well, this whole Pharisees & Sadducees business has gotten me thoroughly confused, so let’s leave them out for the moment. Then the only people left would seem to be the Romans. Does that mean that the Romans were liberals?

Stop the press, I say.

EDIT: And good night, and good luck, of course.


Fun fact: Ad hominem

Did you know…

…that pointing out errors in a discussion opponent’s reasoning is the same as making an ad hominem attack? It’s true! Witness this recent discussion on Conservapedia’s Talk:Scientific Theory page:

I guess your confusion, RSchlafly, lies in the fact that you conflate the profession of a biologist who specializes in the study of evolution (an “evolutionist”) with all scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution as the unifying theory of all the life sciences, and make observations, perform experiments and publish their findings on that basis. Scientist studying the mutations of a flu virus, scientists studying a troop of baboons, and scientists classifying new plants discovered in the Amazon may all rely on the Theory of Evolution to predict and explain much of what they observe, but they are not evolutionists as defined by the dictionary. You, however, use the term to include any scientist who accepts the Theory of Evolution as fact. That is ann error. NitramNos 10:35, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Your ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the article. RSchlafly 10:41, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

I sure wish I knew how to debate as well as RSchlafly. Usually, I get bogged down in all sorts of things like counterarguments, pointing out logical fallacies, and finding ways to disprove the opponent’s arguments, but I can see that this other approach is clearly superior. Obviously, since I’m always right, to disagree with me is an ad hominem against me.

I’m glad to say that I think we have all learned something today.

Fun fact: Saint Jerome

Did you know…

…that the fact that Saint Jerome (ca. 340-419) was not baptized until around the age of 18 or 20 means that he was not raised as a Catholic? It’s true!

To a casual observer, it might seem like this is simply a case of a Sysop pretending to know something about religious history, without actually knowing what he’s talking about, and thus anachronistically applying modern attitudes to fourth-century Christianity. However, this is Conservapedia, and as we all know, it is never easy to predict which particular reality will prevail in the end. Maybe starting tomorrow, virtually dozens of homeschoolers will be learning about how one of the most important Church Fathers was actually not raised as a Catholic.

A part of this little exchange that I particularly like is the way Sysop TK completely and summarily dismisses a valid scholarly reference which was added only half an hour before making the revert. But of course he has the Epistle to Theophilius fully memorized, and has the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium standing on a shelf right next to the computer – right?

EDIT: This little misunderstanding has been cleared up now.

Fun fact: A clean slate

Did you know…

…that one of the most controversial editors on Conservapedia regularly wipes entries from his talk page, instead of archiving them like any reasonable person would do? It’s true!

Fun Question Time! Why do you think he does that?

UPDATE: This practice seems to be spreading:

Fun fact: Copyright

Did you know…

…that using the copyrighted logo of the Boston Red Sox in a Conservapedia userbox is not ok? But using the copyrighted front cover of a 2007 book release in an article on Eleanor of Aquitaine is not only ok, but also not non-encyclopeadic? It’s true!

Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Fun fact: Blind gunmen

Did you know…

…that denying blind people a gun license is discrimination? It’s true!

It’s discriminatory and borne of prejudicial attitudes. Blind persons are probably more responsible with firearms than those who can see. There’s no evidence to the contrary, and this person holds a gun permit in two other states.

What’s next – denying gun permits based on the color of one’s skin?–Aschlafly 22:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I can certainly see where they’re coming from on this. I mean, I’ve heard a lot about Zen archery, so why not Zen gunnery as well? Nay-sayers might point out that the guy probably can’t see who he’s shooting at, but what do they know about anything, eh?

Fun fact: Liberal haters

Did you know…

…that Conservapedia does not block only for ideological reasons?

But apparently,

[Conservapedia has] gotten rid of many liberal haters last night, this morning. More to come! —Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.