jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (11 posts)

The Religious Right is Rewriting the Bible to Make It Less Socialist

  1. kerryg profile image89
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    I thought this was just too hilarious not to share.

    Apparently the Inerrant Word of God is not so inerrant after all. It has been corrupted by liberal propagandists! Conservapedia has begun the Conservative Bible Project to get rid of all that horrible stuff about loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek and restore the Bible to its true conservative form.

    For example:

    Actually, Jesus was such a total pinko socialist hippie that I'm thinking they'll probably have to write him out entirely! lol

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    In other words...they don't want to believe in the teachings of Jesus? They'll need to call themselves something other than Christian's then.

    I guess James I was the first liberal media shill?

    I can see this going over big roll

  3. 0
    \Brenda Scullyposted 7 years ago

    and what right have they to do it I ask you

  4. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    What bothers me is the largely successful attempt to co-opt Christianity and politicize it in this perverse, rule-based way. What I mean is, if you have an eccentric interpretation of the New Testament and your church wants to to kick out all the 'turn the other cheek' parts, fine. You're free to do that in the U.S. But it seems conservative Christianity always has to go a step farther and make everyone else wrong. That's the part that pisses people off. Believe what you want, but don't use it to beat other people over the head.

  5. Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 7 years ago

    Can you image the Adsence income that will be gained from this? lol OMG what about all the new Keywords? hmm

  6. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    Which brings precisely into view that even the original writers of the Bible probably slanted what they wrote based on their own perceptions, experiences and the connotations of the day. Since Christ never wrote a syllable but is quoted often, how accurate can that be, based on writing what they remember years later in secrecy for fear of death?

    Oh, and yes, let's give one more interpretation to the Old Testament as well. Not like the Jews were lacking in understanding their own writings, eh?

    So, it's all fine by me. Just another interpretation, which I believe has been the biggest driver of argument in religion for thousands of years.


    Right and wrong. What a load of batsh**.

    Maybe the focus should be on doing good. Less likely to be interpreted and completely weirded out.

  7. Aya Katz profile image91
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Daniel, the problem with "doing good" is that "good" is completely subjective. No two people agree what is good.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image88
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      1) Just because opinions about anyting conflict -- including morality and the moral good -- does not mean that there is no objective truth to be had about a subject.

      We could just as well say:

      Some people believe the earth is flat.

      Some people believe the earth is round.

      People's opinions differ.

      Therefore there is no truth about whether the earth has any fixed shape.  It's all just subjective opinion.

      In logic, this is a fallacy  called "the conclusion does not follow from the premise."  Using something like the earth, which we know has a fixed shape, it's easy to see this form of argument is a poor one.  It remains poor when applied to any other subject, including ethics, because the logical form of the argument is fatally flawed.

      2) It isn't true to say, "No two people agree what is good."  Most people agree about many things in ethics, else we'dnever be able to live together in societies. 

      Most people believe it isn't good to murder one another. 

      Most people believe that, usually,one should be honest when it matters (if they didn't, communication would be impossible). 

      Most people believe that at least some children must be taken care of (or else societies would all die inside of one generation). 

      Most people believe that stealing is not good(or else societies would be so unstable one could not plan for the future).

      And so on.

      Moreover, these are not arbitrary beliefs concocted out of whole cloth, subjective opinions, or cultural invention -- the ethical values mentioned here (and more besides) are prerequisites for the existence of societies; and human beings cannot live as human beings without societies.  Attempts to live without these values and base one's life on wholly subjective opinion qickly leads to the dehumanization of the individual or even death (though I am not sure which is worse).

      Something to ponder.

  8. atomswifey profile image70
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    Anyone can create a website and fill it it with all sorts of things inside their head. That doesn't mean ALL Christians buy into it or agree with it.

    Interpretation of the Bible is up to the reader and their faith. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word of God to be written. The variations of text from Bible to Bible may differ somewhat this is true, but Gods Word can stand on its own through it all.

    1. UpHisAss profile image60
      UpHisAssposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - never in the history of the bible has there ever been any disagreement. Ever. Well done. Glory!

  9. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I fail to note that Jesus would be a liberal in todays standards. He broke "traditions" of man, but we should not evolve to todays liberal standards. For "I changeth not".