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.
Actually, Jesus was such a total pinko socialist hippie that I'm thinking they'll probably have to write him out entirely!
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
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.
Can you image the Adsence income that will be gained from this? OMG what about all the new Keywords?
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.
Daniel, the problem with "doing good" is that "good" is completely subjective. No two people agree what is good.
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.
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.
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".
by Stacie L 6 years ago
Posted on December 13, 2012 at 2:23pm by Billy Hallowell According to the editors, King James I, the man behind the popular Bible translation, was a bisexual "known amongst friends and courtiers as 'Queen James' because of his many gay lovers."The Queen James Bible resolves...
by Cecilia 8 years ago
The hilarious pattern of people in the forums is not realizing they are in the wrong genre.There is a scientific discussion and then the churchgoers who know nothing about science pipes in.Then the churchgoers want to discuss matters of faith, what the passages mean and then there's this thick lump...
by Credence2 5 years ago
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … -friedman/For me this is right where I live!A most interesting and revealing article, your thoughts please...
by Melissa Barrett 7 years ago
Okay, I've really taken an interest in the forums for the last few days as I need something to keep my mind off of something. I've noticed a few things and came up with a few theories on HubPages groupthink. Thought it be fun to test them out, so here goes:I, technically, am a Unitarian...
by Jesse James 8 years ago
This is another religious topic, but unlike most that are posted. The basis of this thread is to gather the thoughts of atheists, evolutions or scientologists and christians can even chime in. Most evolutionists believe that the world wasn't created by a God, but rather formed through many...
by mbuggieh 4 years ago
A recent essay published in salon.com entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the battle for American science" made the following points:"The religious right has been freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” for what feels like an...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|