first

The one that struck me:

"Corinthians 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

That pretty much excludes the whole Religious Right (Giuliani, Gingrich, Thompson, Allen, etc)

It's pretty clearly there in black and white.

Why aren't they condemning their own leaders?

four thumbs up!

To quoth Robin Williams, "Reality, what a concept!" End quoth.

Wingers are such chuckleheads.

I bet ya Lewis is hella' fun in bed.

should read "coined in the last Century."

Don't you just love him. And guess what I found out he is from my old state of Maryland. He is without a doubt one of the funniest and prophetic comics around.

HomeRUN!!

That is so funny.

Stewart/Black in 08! :-)

There's only one thing to do, we must raid conservapedia in the name of wikiality!

There are 2 versions of America: Conservative America and Regular America.

yuh-uhuh! @ 27:

There are 2 versions of America: Conservative America and Regular America.

There are two separate universes: reality and conservative fantasyland.

Cantor de Mambo @ 14:

From Conservapedia:
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals . . .

What version of the Bible is this? I'm quite sure there was no word "effeminate" at the time, and the word "homosexual" is a word that was coined in the Century.

Shouldn't it be called Christofascistpedia or something like that?

Well here's a cross comparison for ya on the Online Parallel Bible
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

Dr. Acula @ 10:

Conservapedia -- what a joke! Truly pathetic. What sayeth they about good 'ol Ted Haggard?

Here's your answer:
Ted Haggard is a former Pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado and a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches. He was leader of the National Association of Evangelicals from 2003 until November 2006 when he stepped down after a scandal.

In November 2006, he was removed or resigned from his leadership positions after allegations of homosexual sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a male prostitute. Originally, Haggard denied even knowing Mike Jones, but due to an investigation he was forced to acknowledge that some accusations, such as his purchasing methamphetamine, were true. He later confessed to "sexual immorality" as well.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.[1]

The man who accused him was quoted as saying afterwards[2] "It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex,". (It should be noted that Haggard supported homosexual civil unions, but not marriage.)[3]

Mike Jones, for his part, was given a lie detector test. He passed the section about Ted Haggard's drug use, but showed deception when it came to the claim of actual homosexual sex.[4]

On February 6, 2007, Tim Ralph, one of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for Haggard, stated that Haggard "is completely heterosexual." Ralph later explained himself further saying that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side." The long-term efficacy of such therapy, however, is yet to be established.

Strawberry @ 13:

I bet ya Lewis is hella’ fun in bed.

Strawberry, you are sooooo right! I can just see him with his flailing arms. :)

Thank you guys for posting Lewis Black, I don't have access to the Daily Show and I really miss his rants.

That Lewis Black guy... Pretty darn funny... I'd pay money to see his routine at a comedy club.. Yep a thumbs up fer sure..
Also in reading technolinguists post about our ol buddy Ted Haggard I noted the comment from Tim Ralph that the good rev was given the 'tools to embrace his heterosexuality'... OK, I'm just going to skip the whole phony side of that so-called conversion and just ask... What tools? Straight porn books and movies? The phone number of some hottie girl escorts? Maybe an all paid vacation to the playboy mansion... Just what kinds of 'tools' are necessary to make gays desire straight sex??? I have a lot of gay friends and I think they'd get a kick out of whatever kind of B.S. claims this amounts too.. I'm thinking they'd get a huge laugh from that....
Oh yea, and what do I have to do to merit this intervention.. If I claimed to gay would they hunt me down to help too??? Jus wonderin, forced celebacy is gettin kinda old.. I could use a little straight sex in my life too...jus sayin......JD

1/2 hour news hour ... fake news show ... should report real news!

Awesome!

It's interesting how Wiki's alleged liberal bias comes up in the context of gay rights, because Wiki is actually biased against gays if anything. While racism is treated as an absolute wrong in Wiki's world, and racist positions are never presented as legitimate, gay rights is treated as a debatable issue. Everything pro-gay is carefully balanced with the anti-gay position, when they never feel the need to similarly prop-up racism. That's why I also laugh when I see Wiki begging from funds, they're not getting a dime from this faggot until they have the backbone to affirm equality for ALL.

Not that it makes any difference to me what the Bible has to say about anything. I just find it interesting how people put so much value on translations of translations of old stories that lack any authenticity whatsoever. Any knowledge acquired in the last 5000 years is irrelevant to these crackpots.

I missed the fornicarii... also nor fornicators

pinkobait @ 34:

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

So um,how's that working for you?
Thats um..*cough* ..some God you have there kids.

jay severin has a small pen1s @ 3:

The one that struck me:

This is from Leviticus Chapter 20. It also says that a man or woman shall be put to death for Adultery (and a miscellany of other acts). It appears that, at least according to this chapter, that the sin of homosexuality carries the same weight and punishment as the sin of infidelity. Yet, if we turn to the book of Matthew, we see that Jesus states such acts begin with lust in your heart. So even the mere preponderance of a lustful feeling is considered sin. Thankfully, this can all be forgiven by accepting that Jesus has atoned for mankind's sins by being crucified. Of course, this is also assuming you believe in creationism (specifically Christianity) rather than something else...

BWAHAHAHAHA!
Wine almost came out of my nose.

Of course he didn't really expose anything. He just made jokes about how liberals think all conservatives think.

I need to get a sex change so I can have Lewis Black's babies.

Yet another part of the ultra-right-wing's continuing effort to built an entire alternate universe out of pure bullsh!t. (Too bad they can't move there and leave the rest of us alone...)

What the hell do you expect of a Web site run by a bunch of paranoid right-wing "Christian" THEOCRATS? I purposely put "Christian" in quotation marks because as far as I'm concerned, they're NOT Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, they are "Paulists" following the teachings of St. Paul -- whose outright misogyny is well-documented in the Bible -- rather than of Jesus, who never said a word about homosexuality, either pro or con.

That these people are THEOCRATS who have have utter contempt for the Constitutional separation of church and state is made quite obvious by their "definition" of homosexuality in "Conservapedia."

http://skeeter-bites.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-movement-to-ban-gay-marria...

I don't think the wing nuts get it. There are two points that they're missing. 1) they want a "conservative" encyclopedia? As opposed to what? A factual one?

2) Wikipedia should never be used as a reliable source. Yes, it has some great information, but the function of allowing anyone and everyone to write in its pages opens the door to inaccurate information. Hence, editors were put in place. Even if a particular Wikipedia entry is completely accurate, one should never trust a single source of information. Three, 4, or 5 sources giving the same information is a lot more reliable.