COMMENTS: 83
Conservatives Are Rewriting the Bible to Free It From "Liberal Bias"
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
In 2006, Andy Schlafly, best known as the son of notorious anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, launched a wiki site called Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia. The nation’s sixth most frequently visited Web site had, he felt, become dominated by liberal and anti-Christian bias.
Now Schlafly has a new project: rewriting the Bible to free it from liberal bias. The new translation will be free of “emasculated” and “dumbed-down” language as well as “liberal wordiness.” So-called “later-inserted liberal passages” will be deleted entirely. All of these changes will be made by amending the King James Version of the Bible through an online wiki format.
While the Conservative Bible Project (CBP) has so far been regarded largely as a joke, it does raise some interesting questions. The idea of writing a sacred text through a wiki is largely unprecedented. The CPB also marks an escalation in what Robert S. McElvaine has called “Grand Theft Jesus”—the appropriation of the Christian tradition for political ends. Is Schlafly a profoundly cynical politician, attempting to manipulate religion in a way that would put Machiavelli and Karl Rove to shame? Or does he truly believe that the Bible has been tainted by “liberalism” for over a thousand years?
The Jefferson Bible as Precedent
Curiously, the CBP is reminiscent of The Jefferson Bible, written in 1820 by our nation’s third president. Thomas Jefferson felt that the teachings of Jesus had been abused and corrupted by Christians, but that the “genuine” teachings of Jesus were “as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill.” Jefferson removed passages referring to the supernatural, as well as what he considered to be misperceptions by the Gospel writers. Critics accused him of paraphrasing the Bible to suit his own ends. Is Schlafly simply a modern day Jefferson, seeking conservative diamonds in a liberal dung-hill?
Not exactly.
The CBP differs from The Jefferson Bible in at least three respects. First, although Jefferson used religious language in the Declaration of Independence and other writings, his revision of the Bible was a private pursuit: He never allowed The Jefferson Bible to be published during his lifetime. Second, Jefferson recognized that his views were highly unorthodox. By contrast, Schlafly identifies as a practicing Catholic and argues that his reading of the Bible is, in fact, orthodox. Finally, the nature of the revisions is fundamentally different. The Jefferson Bible rejects supernaturalism as well as the tenets of Calvinism.
However, Schlafly’s projects—Conservapedia and the CBP—do not seek to combat specific ideologies so much as a species called “liberals.” Conservapedia defines a “liberal” as “someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.” In this world, liberals are incapable of understanding the Bible, or even logical thought. Where Jefferson excluded doctrines from his Bible, the CBP seeks to exclude words. “Accountability,” for instance, is a conservative word that enriches understanding of scripture. “Laborer,” on the other hand, is a liberal word and has no place in the Bible.
“Young girl”? How about “floozy,” “bimbo,” or “temptress”?
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wendiego on Oct 27, 2009 1:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is ridiculous...
Posted by: MMarauder
» RE: This is ridiculous...
Posted by: Jethro2112
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desertlakes on Oct 27, 2009 1:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No. Jesus was a socialist
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal socialist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal socialist
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal and so are socialists
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Wait ... what?
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: what? what? what?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: what? what? what?
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Jesus was a Liberal?
Posted by: masthead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Oct 27, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More precisely, Christian fundamentalists who believe the Bible as the literal word of God are publicly slamming Schlafly for daring to "tamper with God's holy word."
Leading the attack against Schlafly is WorldNetDaily's publisher Joseph Farah, who in blistering column on the right-wing Web site, openly ridiculed the CBP. "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake,' Farah writes."Because the Bible has been rewritten to conform with the agenda of 'liberals,' a self-described 'conservative' is spearheading an effort to rewrite it to his liking."
Farah went on: "I'm almost too embarrassed to write about this kind of trivialization and politicization of the Scriptures, but something needs to be said. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it's not.
"If it is, how dare anyone rewrite it!" Farah fumed, "If it's not, why bother?"
Farah warns: "Rewriting the Bible to fit man's ideas is always a bad idea – no matter who the man is or what his beliefs. It's also a profoundly dangerous practice spiritually."
With Schlafly's other online project, Conservapedia, -- a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia -- having been ridiculed by historians as inherently misleading at best and riddled with outright falsehoods at worst, Farah's attack on Schlafly's attempt to produce a simon-pure right-wing Bible should surprise no one who understands that fundamentalists tolerate no tampering with the Bible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservative Bible Project Under Attack -- From Conservatives!
Posted by: Spiritgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beachcomberT on Oct 27, 2009 3:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all." (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Through the Looking Glass
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Oct 27, 2009 3:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And "Thou Shalt not Kill" will be changed to "Thou Shalt Not Kill Jews and most Christians, but Muslims Thou Shalt Slaughter"
But don't take out all those OT stories about drunken incest and rape and mass murder.
Who really knows what was originally in the Bible? It was passed on by word of mouth for over 60 years before being put in writing.
People can't even pass on a juicy gossip story without changing the original rumor so how could humans pass verbatim a very long text without major changes and omissions?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Memory
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: Memory
Posted by: vksa
» RE: clearly a Urpeen-lovin', God-hatin', arugula-eatin' liberal
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jarbo on Oct 27, 2009 3:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FbO Vorcha on Oct 27, 2009 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They missed the Klingon Translation
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: They missed the Klingon Translation
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MMarauder on Oct 27, 2009 4:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rationalrant on Oct 27, 2009 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zipper696 on Oct 27, 2009 5:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When one commentator on the talk page suggested that the translators should “go back to the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc.,” in translating the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, for example, Schlafly retorted that the Bible was written in Greek, adding that the commentator seemed “unsure in identifying the original language.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
How very reminiscent of the Fundamentalist preacher who thundered to his Congregation that "..if English was good enough for God to write the Bible, then it's good enough for me"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wbblack on Oct 27, 2009 5:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bushmaster on Oct 27, 2009 5:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This liberal / conservative mania has reached a truly incredible position when it wants to change the basis of religious knowledge. I wonder what the underlying agenda for this is.
It seems to me that anyone involved in this project has discredited themselves. It seems preposterous to me and I'm not a believer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wonder what the underlying agenda for this is.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Oct 27, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a good time to be an Athiest.
F.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Time to Re-Read The Handmaids Tale.
Posted by: Redhead5050
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Word Mix on Oct 27, 2009 6:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jesus was just too liberal for them.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vkobaya1 on Oct 27, 2009 6:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only begotten son of God, George W. Bush ...
666 is the mark of God
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is not Monty Python you know . . .
Posted by: Vark
» RE: It is not Monty Python you know . . .
Posted by: Swatopluk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pj1fwb on Oct 27, 2009 6:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Oct 27, 2009 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do states have different capitals in conservo-whacko-land? Does 1 + 1 equal something other than 2? Water freeze at 42 degrees?
I absolutely love Schafly's definition of a liberal as someone who can't think logically. Religion is based on faith - the exact opposite of thinking logically.
Seems like a good segue to some quotes from Robert A. Heinlein...
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why do conservatives & christians need separate schools and even a separate online encyclopedia?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» You cannot see kangaroo logic, so you must be a liberal
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: You cannot see kangaroo logic, so you must be a liberal
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Oct 27, 2009 7:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that they've read it in advance--their Jesus states that damnation will follow any who add or remove to the Scriptures.
The Southern adherence to the King James Version derives from a Dixie family related to/descended from one of that king's translation crew, a politically astute individual who substituted "witch" for "pythoness" as a capital crime, so that the king's Scottish countrymen could continue stealing land from old ladies. This is the same crew who removed several books, including the Maccabees, from the Old Testament--books still included in the Jewish and Catholic editions.
And there is the legendary Book of Mary Magdalene, reputed to reside in the Vatican library under lock and guard...
Nashville is reputed to have "editors" in their religious print houses which will change the Book of Revelation's beast mark to any deformity, mark, or disfigurement needed for their relatives to ostracize and rob from landed but disempowered prey. The "Face Bible" was outed in the 1950's, but equivalents still circulate in Southern backwaters.
Just proves Christianity is a con job, designed by thieves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Con Job? Ka-Ching!
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jcutler9 on Oct 27, 2009 7:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was conservatives, such as the Pharisees, who called for his death. He was a threat to their old ways.
The word liberal or derivatives thereof appears eight times in the bible, always favorably; the word conservative not once.
Also, Schlafly will have to go to some lengths to expunge the word "laborer" from the Bible, as in Luke 10:17 "...the laborer is worthy of his hire," and I Timothy 5:18 "...the laborer is worthy of his reward." God Forbid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 27, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).
Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)
Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."
Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)
Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.
Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?
If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.
Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."
Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?
Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?
Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!
Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There are actually FOUR gospels
Posted by: SickOfSophistry
» RE: most Christians aren't even following Paul
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NumberSix on Oct 27, 2009 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to wonder, when they do this rewrite, will they take out the smoking gun of Sodom's demise?...
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Yeah, take that out, way too liberal, eh?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Me, either - I'd love to see
Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: In a sad way, I can't wait! About that quote ya' got thar...
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grousefeather on Oct 27, 2009 7:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes - we must remember that it is a sacred text.
Posted by: Vark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joehill on Oct 27, 2009 7:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Religious Right Nutbags have been throwing the Bible in the face of the rest of us and now they have decided that rewriting it to comply with their beliefs would be even better.
This sort is hippocracy is EXACTLY why I quit organized religion 30 years ago.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MMarauder on Oct 27, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then we could get back to some good ol' righteous petty vengeance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: C.Richardi on Oct 27, 2009 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Join in a real knuckle dragging discussion forum.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So.... Not quite
Posted by: MMarauder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Oct 27, 2009 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Btw, doesn't Phyllis Shoo-fly have another son who is gay?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Damn liberals of 1604 Anglican England
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 1gma on Oct 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davmills on Oct 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rational_moderate on Oct 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that many different religions claim to have a monopoly on the absolute truth and yet contradict each other hasn't made enough people skeptical about religion.
Perhaps the proliferation of various versions of the Christian Bible that contradict each other will at least create more skeptics in the US, where religiosity is rampant.
Imagine ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe this will help undermine reverence for this gibberish
Posted by: Redhead5050
» Imagine... lead poisoning
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Longdream on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell us something we don't know.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chirho33 on Oct 27, 2009 11:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If morons want to re-write the bible or even write their own, let 'em; it's no big deal.
The archaic language it's written in is probably too much for their tiny minds to get around, anyway.
They can change all the names to Bugs Bunny, Scooby DOO, and Little Orphan Annie, for all the reality that's there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can Jesus be more liberal than most of his followers? See Matthew 25.
The Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796, Art. 11: “...As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
If references to Jesus’ divinity or any supernatural event were removed from Thomas Jefferson's Bible, why did Congress publish Thomas Jefferson's Bible in 1902?
Why do Christians refuse to see the Founding Fathers as Deists and Freemasons?
How can the Bible be so fluid a document when its followers appear so inflexible?
Why wasn’t an association made between the Conservapedia project and Reconstructionism (Biblical vs. secular law) and Dominionism (Christian vs. secular nation)? Strip the Bible of any sense of equality and compassion and what follows is slavery and stoning.
And why would any sane woman ever join the church?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on Oct 27, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that those ideas are still prevalent in churches that are fundamentalist. The problem was that my young Quaker pastor was arguing in favor of those ideas. I almost left the church right then. I did leave the church a few months later because another man put forward the idea that men should always be preferred to women preachers, even if they were not trained pastors or experienced as the women were. The young pastor did not offer or invite any argument against that, which was very unlike his previous demeanor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Oceola on Oct 27, 2009 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: L5 on Oct 27, 2009 5:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 27, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gotta go back to makin' a golem...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: majr17440 on Oct 27, 2009 6:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swkidder on Oct 27, 2009 7:44 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) don't seem to have actually read Jesus' teachings,
2) don't seem to have ever looked in a mirror and recognized the existence of some of the faults they see so easily in others,
3) have totally lost the capacity for irony,
4) appear to be able to read the entire Bible and miss the part about who's actually supposed to judge and who isn't?
I know too many amazing people who have studied the Bible for years without suffering damage to either their ability to reason or their capacity for genuine compassion - otherwise I would seriously wonder whether Biblical study leads to brain damage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sekhmetnakt on Oct 28, 2009 7:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AcePilot2009 on Oct 29, 2009 8:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both passages specifically condemn homosexuality.
Now, what else do you leftists want to delete from the Bible? If you are going to condemn the Right for tampering with the Bible, take a good look in the mirror!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE BIBLE CONDEMNS GAY LIFESTYLE
Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darter22 on Oct 30, 2009 10:53 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Adastra on Oct 31, 2009 8:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These slimy bastards will soon be the target of outraged Jeremiads from Christianoid pastors across the nation and around the world. And there goes a huge chunk of the political base these neo-cons have drawn much of their support from. What it boils down to is that where Jesus tells us that we should "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's",--now the CBP tells us that we have to choose between Caesar and God and that we'd better choose Caesar. How well do you think that will play in Crawford, TX? The fools are preparing to shoot themselves in the head with this latest insanity. It might even lead to a sweeping revival of the liberal approach to Christianity. It certainly will do nothing but irreparable harm to the conservative program and their attempts to establish a religious despotism in the USA, supported by corporate fascism.
Happy days are here again, people. Rejoice and let freedom ring from every steeple across America.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fitz4657 on Nov 1, 2009 1:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Thou shalt love thine enemies as thyself", and "Turn the other cheek"??? What about all that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grailsnail on Nov 4, 2009 3:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4insure on Nov 6, 2009 9:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
auto insurance
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Wendiego on Oct 27, 2009 1:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is ridiculous...
Posted by: MMarauder
» RE: This is ridiculous...
Posted by: Jethro2112
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desertlakes on Oct 27, 2009 1:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No. Jesus was a socialist
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal socialist
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal socialist
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Wait ... what? Jesus was a liberal and so are socialists
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Wait ... what?
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: what? what? what?
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: what? what? what?
Posted by: truth+equality
» RE: Jesus was a Liberal?
Posted by: masthead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Oct 27, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More precisely, Christian fundamentalists who believe the Bible as the literal word of God are publicly slamming Schlafly for daring to "tamper with God's holy word."
Leading the attack against Schlafly is WorldNetDaily's publisher Joseph Farah, who in blistering column on the right-wing Web site, openly ridiculed the CBP. "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake,' Farah writes."Because the Bible has been rewritten to conform with the agenda of 'liberals,' a self-described 'conservative' is spearheading an effort to rewrite it to his liking."
Farah went on: "I'm almost too embarrassed to write about this kind of trivialization and politicization of the Scriptures, but something needs to be said. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it's not.
"If it is, how dare anyone rewrite it!" Farah fumed, "If it's not, why bother?"
Farah warns: "Rewriting the Bible to fit man's ideas is always a bad idea – no matter who the man is or what his beliefs. It's also a profoundly dangerous practice spiritually."
With Schlafly's other online project, Conservapedia, -- a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia -- having been ridiculed by historians as inherently misleading at best and riddled with outright falsehoods at worst, Farah's attack on Schlafly's attempt to produce a simon-pure right-wing Bible should surprise no one who understands that fundamentalists tolerate no tampering with the Bible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservative Bible Project Under Attack -- From Conservatives!
Posted by: Spiritgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beachcomberT on Oct 27, 2009 3:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all." (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Through the Looking Glass
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Oct 27, 2009 3:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And "Thou Shalt not Kill" will be changed to "Thou Shalt Not Kill Jews and most Christians, but Muslims Thou Shalt Slaughter"
But don't take out all those OT stories about drunken incest and rape and mass murder.
Who really knows what was originally in the Bible? It was passed on by word of mouth for over 60 years before being put in writing.
People can't even pass on a juicy gossip story without changing the original rumor so how could humans pass verbatim a very long text without major changes and omissions?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Memory
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: Memory
Posted by: vksa
» RE: clearly a Urpeen-lovin', God-hatin', arugula-eatin' liberal
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jarbo on Oct 27, 2009 3:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FbO Vorcha on Oct 27, 2009 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They missed the Klingon Translation
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: They missed the Klingon Translation
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MMarauder on Oct 27, 2009 4:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rationalrant on Oct 27, 2009 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zipper696 on Oct 27, 2009 5:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When one commentator on the talk page suggested that the translators should “go back to the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc.,” in translating the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, for example, Schlafly retorted that the Bible was written in Greek, adding that the commentator seemed “unsure in identifying the original language.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
How very reminiscent of the Fundamentalist preacher who thundered to his Congregation that "..if English was good enough for God to write the Bible, then it's good enough for me"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wbblack on Oct 27, 2009 5:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bushmaster on Oct 27, 2009 5:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This liberal / conservative mania has reached a truly incredible position when it wants to change the basis of religious knowledge. I wonder what the underlying agenda for this is.
It seems to me that anyone involved in this project has discredited themselves. It seems preposterous to me and I'm not a believer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wonder what the underlying agenda for this is.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Oct 27, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a good time to be an Athiest.
F.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Time to Re-Read The Handmaids Tale.
Posted by: Redhead5050
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Word Mix on Oct 27, 2009 6:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jesus was just too liberal for them.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vkobaya1 on Oct 27, 2009 6:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only begotten son of God, George W. Bush ...
666 is the mark of God
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It is not Monty Python you know . . .
Posted by: Vark
» RE: It is not Monty Python you know . . .
Posted by: Swatopluk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pj1fwb on Oct 27, 2009 6:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Oct 27, 2009 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do states have different capitals in conservo-whacko-land? Does 1 + 1 equal something other than 2? Water freeze at 42 degrees?
I absolutely love Schafly's definition of a liberal as someone who can't think logically. Religion is based on faith - the exact opposite of thinking logically.
Seems like a good segue to some quotes from Robert A. Heinlein...
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why do conservatives & christians need separate schools and even a separate online encyclopedia?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» You cannot see kangaroo logic, so you must be a liberal
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: You cannot see kangaroo logic, so you must be a liberal
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Oct 27, 2009 7:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that they've read it in advance--their Jesus states that damnation will follow any who add or remove to the Scriptures.
The Southern adherence to the King James Version derives from a Dixie family related to/descended from one of that king's translation crew, a politically astute individual who substituted "witch" for "pythoness" as a capital crime, so that the king's Scottish countrymen could continue stealing land from old ladies. This is the same crew who removed several books, including the Maccabees, from the Old Testament--books still included in the Jewish and Catholic editions.
And there is the legendary Book of Mary Magdalene, reputed to reside in the Vatican library under lock and guard...
Nashville is reputed to have "editors" in their religious print houses which will change the Book of Revelation's beast mark to any deformity, mark, or disfigurement needed for their relatives to ostracize and rob from landed but disempowered prey. The "Face Bible" was outed in the 1950's, but equivalents still circulate in Southern backwaters.
Just proves Christianity is a con job, designed by thieves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Con Job? Ka-Ching!
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jcutler9 on Oct 27, 2009 7:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was conservatives, such as the Pharisees, who called for his death. He was a threat to their old ways.
The word liberal or derivatives thereof appears eight times in the bible, always favorably; the word conservative not once.
Also, Schlafly will have to go to some lengths to expunge the word "laborer" from the Bible, as in Luke 10:17 "...the laborer is worthy of his hire," and I Timothy 5:18 "...the laborer is worthy of his reward." God Forbid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 27, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).
Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)
Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."
Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)
Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.
Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?
If Jesus really came to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.
Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."
Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?
Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?
Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!
Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There are actually FOUR gospels
Posted by: SickOfSophistry
» RE: most Christians aren't even following Paul
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NumberSix on Oct 27, 2009 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to wonder, when they do this rewrite, will they take out the smoking gun of Sodom's demise?...
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Yeah, take that out, way too liberal, eh?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Me, either - I'd love to see
Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: In a sad way, I can't wait! About that quote ya' got thar...
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grousefeather on Oct 27, 2009 7:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes - we must remember that it is a sacred text.
Posted by: Vark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joehill on Oct 27, 2009 7:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Religious Right Nutbags have been throwing the Bible in the face of the rest of us and now they have decided that rewriting it to comply with their beliefs would be even better.
This sort is hippocracy is EXACTLY why I quit organized religion 30 years ago.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MMarauder on Oct 27, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then we could get back to some good ol' righteous petty vengeance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: C.Richardi on Oct 27, 2009 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Join in a real knuckle dragging discussion forum.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So.... Not quite
Posted by: MMarauder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Oct 27, 2009 9:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Btw, doesn't Phyllis Shoo-fly have another son who is gay?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Damn liberals of 1604 Anglican England
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 1gma on Oct 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davmills on Oct 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rational_moderate on Oct 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that many different religions claim to have a monopoly on the absolute truth and yet contradict each other hasn't made enough people skeptical about religion.
Perhaps the proliferation of various versions of the Christian Bible that contradict each other will at least create more skeptics in the US, where religiosity is rampant.
Imagine ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe this will help undermine reverence for this gibberish
Posted by: Redhead5050
» Imagine... lead poisoning
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Longdream on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell us something we don't know.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chirho33 on Oct 27, 2009 11:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Oct 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If morons want to re-write the bible or even write their own, let 'em; it's no big deal.
The archaic language it's written in is probably too much for their tiny minds to get around, anyway.
They can change all the names to Bugs Bunny, Scooby DOO, and Little Orphan Annie, for all the reality that's there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can Jesus be more liberal than most of his followers? See Matthew 25.
The Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796, Art. 11: “...As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
If references to Jesus’ divinity or any supernatural event were removed from Thomas Jefferson's Bible, why did Congress publish Thomas Jefferson's Bible in 1902?
Why do Christians refuse to see the Founding Fathers as Deists and Freemasons?
How can the Bible be so fluid a document when its followers appear so inflexible?
Why wasn’t an association made between the Conservapedia project and Reconstructionism (Biblical vs. secular law) and Dominionism (Christian vs. secular nation)? Strip the Bible of any sense of equality and compassion and what follows is slavery and stoning.
And why would any sane woman ever join the church?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on Oct 27, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that those ideas are still prevalent in churches that are fundamentalist. The problem was that my young Quaker pastor was arguing in favor of those ideas. I almost left the church right then. I did leave the church a few months later because another man put forward the idea that men should always be preferred to women preachers, even if they were not trained pastors or experienced as the women were. The young pastor did not offer or invite any argument against that, which was very unlike his previous demeanor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Oceola on Oct 27, 2009 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: L5 on Oct 27, 2009 5:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 27, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gotta go back to makin' a golem...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: majr17440 on Oct 27, 2009 6:25 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: swkidder on Oct 27, 2009 7:44 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) don't seem to have actually read Jesus' teachings,
2) don't seem to have ever looked in a mirror and recognized the existence of some of the faults they see so easily in others,
3) have totally lost the capacity for irony,
4) appear to be able to read the entire Bible and miss the part about who's actually supposed to judge and who isn't?
I know too many amazing people who have studied the Bible for years without suffering damage to either their ability to reason or their capacity for genuine compassion - otherwise I would seriously wonder whether Biblical study leads to brain damage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sekhmetnakt on Oct 28, 2009 7:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AcePilot2009 on Oct 29, 2009 8:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both passages specifically condemn homosexuality.
Now, what else do you leftists want to delete from the Bible? If you are going to condemn the Right for tampering with the Bible, take a good look in the mirror!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE BIBLE CONDEMNS GAY LIFESTYLE
Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darter22 on Oct 30, 2009 10:53 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Adastra on Oct 31, 2009 8:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These slimy bastards will soon be the target of outraged Jeremiads from Christianoid pastors across the nation and around the world. And there goes a huge chunk of the political base these neo-cons have drawn much of their support from. What it boils down to is that where Jesus tells us that we should "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's",--now the CBP tells us that we have to choose between Caesar and God and that we'd better choose Caesar. How well do you think that will play in Crawford, TX? The fools are preparing to shoot themselves in the head with this latest insanity. It might even lead to a sweeping revival of the liberal approach to Christianity. It certainly will do nothing but irreparable harm to the conservative program and their attempts to establish a religious despotism in the USA, supported by corporate fascism.
Happy days are here again, people. Rejoice and let freedom ring from every steeple across America.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fitz4657 on Nov 1, 2009 1:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Thou shalt love thine enemies as thyself", and "Turn the other cheek"??? What about all that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grailsnail on Nov 4, 2009 3:33 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4insure on Nov 6, 2009 9:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
auto insurance
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




