Conservapedia’s New and Improved Non-Commie Bible

Religion • Views: 7,993

The far right fanatics who run “Conservapedia” have a new project: they’re planning to rewrite the Bible to get rid of all of that liberalism and socialism: Conservative Bible Project.

Yes, really. Here’s an example of the kind of stuff they think needs to be excised from the all-new conservative Bible:

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

Yeah, conservatives don’t want no truck with that librul “forgiveness” thang! Out with it!

Wow.

Other problematic commie terms include “volunteer,” “comrade,” and “laborer.” (You couldn’t write comedy like this.)

For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.

The interesting thing about this project: it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.

Things that make you go, “Hmmm.”

Jump to bottom

342 comments
1 redshirt  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:41:55pm

Animal Farm, anyone?

2 drogheda  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:42:55pm

So they're just going to throw out the New Testament then?

3 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:43:07pm

It can't be worse than the LOLcat Bible.

4 researchok  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:43:40pm

Whack jobs.

5 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:43:46pm

re: #2 drogheda

So they're just going to throw out the New Testament then?

No, it will become the New New Testament.

6 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:44:12pm
it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.


Only if they're editing the original Hebrew and Greek.

7 Pianobuff  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:44:37pm

They ought to join forces with the Historical Jesus crew. By the time they are finished hacking away, they can spend the rest of their energy debating what to do with what is left: "Jesus wept". Maybe "Jesus sweated" or something like that will do.

8 redshirt  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:45:34pm

If it ain't in the original Sumerian (wild guess) then the whole book is nothing but a bunch of peoples opinions of the meaning anyways.
Translation is open to interpretation. (made myself laugh with that one!)

9 baier  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:45:44pm

Can we put something in there about hot wings and football?

10 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:46:34pm

Wait until they see this:

Genesis for the internet generation.

11 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:46:55pm

re: #6 Kosh's Shadow

Only if they're editing the original Hebrew and Greek.

Once you translate it, there's almost certainly going to be some bias, one way or the other. I'm not limiting it to political bias. It could be bias to favour the religious views of one group over another.

12 redshirt  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:47:21pm

They should change the commandment "You shalt not kill", to: "you shalt not murder"
Big difference there.

13 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:47:22pm

Charles

Did you post this just for my pleasure? You must have. There is so much wrong with this idea, from their initial approach to the 2000 years of textual criticism that is available to shoot down their whole premise.

This thread should be interesting.

14 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:47:25pm

re: #7 Pianobuff

They ought to join forces with the Historical Jesus crew. By the time they are finished hacking away, they can spend the rest of their energy debating what to do with what is left: "Jesus wept". Maybe "Jesus sweated" or something like that will do.

Saw a bumpersticker once... "Jesus Farted".

Well? He did!

15 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:47:29pm

A group that calls itself conservative feels the need to edit the Bible to fit its values.

Speechless...

16 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:47:32pm
The interesting thing about this project: it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.


Shocka!

17 Dainn  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:48:07pm

Since we are so polarized, there should be liberal (ESLV) and conservative (ESCV) editions of the Bible. Make it what you need.

Partytime in the echo chamber.

18 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:48:26pm

This isn't totally a totally foreign concept.

In Israel, the furthest left Kibbutzim use "Marxist" Haggadah's (used to tell the story of Exodus) for their Passover Seders that remove all reference to G-d, etc, and follow a more "humanistic" narrative.

19 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:48:31pm

re: #14 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Saw a bumpersticker once... "Jesus Farted".

Well? He did!

Jesus saves. Moses invests.

20 HelloDare  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:49:20pm

I can hardly wait for the NASCAR Bible.

21 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:49:25pm

re: #3 Mad Al-Jaffee

At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1


Heh.

22 HelloDare  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:07pm

re: #14 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Saw a bumpersticker once... "Jesus Farted".

Well? He did!

Yeah, but it smelled like roses.

23 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:09pm

re: #18 Ben Hur

This isn't totally a totally foreign concept.

In Israel, the furthest left Kibbutzim use "Marxist" Haggadah's (used to tell the story of Exodus) for their Passover Seders that remove all reference to G-d, etc, and follow a more "humanistic" narrative.

But it's totally WRONG. That's really all that matters.

24 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:19pm

re: #8 redshirt

If it ain't in the original Sumerian (wild guess) then the whole book is nothing but a bunch of peoples opinions of the meaning anyways. Translation is open to interpretation. (made myself laugh with that one!)

What? Original Sumerian? It helps if you start with some facts.

25 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:23pm

re: #12 redshirt

They should change the commandment "You shalt not kill", to: "you shalt not murder"

I've seen it written that way.

26 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:24pm

I don't suppose they're planning a conservative Quran after they finish this project.

27 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:47pm

re: #23 Walter L. Newton

But it's totally WRONG. That's really all that matters.

I agree.

But postmodernism cuts both ways, I presume.

28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:50:59pm

re: #22 HelloDare

Yeah, but it smelled like roses.

If you said unicorns and rainbows I was coming after you!
/

29 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:51:56pm

Thank you for the thread Charles. I've just found the following gem on the web, something that I wouldn't have thought of looking for, had it not been for the thread.

The gospels in scouse

30 nines09  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:52:06pm

I think I'm speechless.
Then on the 7th day God cracked a frostie and said, "Damn I'm good."

31 mikalm  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:52:29pm

OT: Is it true Zombie got banned last night?

32 wrenchwench  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:52:45pm

re: #3 Mad Al-Jaffee

It can't be worse than the LOLcat Bible.

Oh, no, you shouldn't have...

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

See y'all in a few hours days.

33 jdog29  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:52:46pm

I wonder what they'll do with the very communistic verses describing Christianity in its infancy:

Acts 2.44-45 "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Acts 4.32 "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

That's from the NIV

34 Dainn  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:53:24pm

re: #3 Mad Al-Jaffee

It can't be worse than the LOLcat Bible.

OMG dis iz teh lollerskates!

(Thanks for this. I can't stop laughing. Didn't think I'd want to read the Bible all day long, but this may just do it.)

35 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:53:55pm

re: #30 nines09

I think I'm speechless.
Then on the 7th day God cracked a frostie and said, "Damn I'm good."

NASCAR Translation, Book of Qualifying, Chapter 1:23

36 Lee Coller  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:53:59pm

This sounds like a bad joke. Is it possible this is someone's parody site?

37 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:54:21pm

re: #31 mikalm

Yes. The reasons are in the lounge thread from last night.

38 wrenchwench  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:54:31pm

re: #31 mikalm

Surely you know how to search the site.

39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:54:32pm

re: #31 mikalm

Ixnay on the Ombiezay.

40 HelloDare  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:54:44pm

Sounds like a false flag operation. Or maybe Christopher Hitchens has finally started writing fiction. /

41 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:55:06pm

So stupid.

and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing

If you didn't believe He was the Savior then you didn't know what you were doing. Not that arguing semantics with these people will fall on anything but deaf ears.

42 webevintage  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:55:50pm

re: #3 Mad Al-Jaffee

It can't be worse than the LOLcat Bible.

Please respect Ceiling Cat, you know he is always watching you...


"Is this a liberal corruption of the original?"
'Cause we all know what dirty hippies Luther and King James were.
/

43 harrylook  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:56:17pm

Dumbest thing I've seen this afternoon. :)

Seriously - that's f-ing stupid. I don't know what else to say.

44 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:56:42pm

re: #33 jdog29

I wonder what they'll do with the very communistic verses describing Christianity in its infancy:

Acts 2.44-45 "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Acts 4.32 "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

That's from the NIV

Er, that's not communistic, since there is not state control of the "industry." Using that verse to "prove" that communism is an early Christian concept is as wrong as using "turn the other cheek" to indicate the passive nature of Christianity. It's not so.

45 jdog29  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:57:18pm

re: #35 Gearhead

NASCAR Translation, Book of Qualifying, Chapter 1:23

Now that's funny. I'd shy away from poking fun at Islam in similar fashion as their defenders are a shade more hard core about being mocked.

46 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:57:56pm

What is the most interesting about this is that the rightwingoshpere has finally come full circle in it's drive to edit away truths it does not like.

The fact is that the bible is very much a social document and all that stuff about having an obligation to:

1. feed the poor, (that's welfare baby! How dare the government - err G-d say I have to give my money to someone eho didn't earn it! Why does G-d hate rich people and the the middle class!),

2. clothe the naked (that's socialism!) and

3. uphold the rights of widows and orphans (if you shut down my sweatshop over seas or force that commie union labor on me, profits will be down! I am actually improving this country by letting five year olds work in my factory!)

Well that just doesn't really fit with the hard ass right wing view now does it?

And what about all of that stuff about forgiveness?

Kinda makes standing outside of a prison shouting where's the beef at midnight seem a bit like not what G-d wanted...

No the reality is that Moses and Jesus would not have been in the GOP. Make no doubt about that.

47 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:02pm

Conservapedia is run by Andrew Schlafly, the son of hardcore social con anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.

The front page of Conservapedia right now is full of creationist topics.

48 HelloDare  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:12pm

When is the Atheist's Bible coming out? You know, the one that removes all references to God.

49 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:14pm
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Will this "repetitive forgiveness" be removed as well? Or will they go just start keeping literal tabs until they've forgiven someone 490 times?

50 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:38pm

re: #48 HelloDare

When is the Atheist's Bible coming out? You know, the one that removes all references to God.

LOL

51 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:49pm

Ecclesiastes 1

1 Teh werdz ov teh preechur, teh son ov David, King of teh Jerusalem.2 "St00pid! St00pid!" Sez teh teechurcat. "Srsly st00pid. Everythingz ghey."3 Wut man getz 4 laburz he toilz @ undur teh sunz?4 Generashun comez n generashun goez, still same lolcats.5 Sun rizez n setz, goez bak n rize agin.

52 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:58:56pm

What will they do with Matthew 5:44?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;..."

(KJV)

53 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:59:02pm

re: #15 Gearhead

A group that calls itself conservative feels the need to edit the Bible to fit its values.

Speechless...

Talk about trying to build a better yesterday...

54 webevintage  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:59:10pm

re: #32 wrenchwench

I think Leviticus is my favorite"

Burnt cheezeburgerz

1 Teh Ceiling Cat saiz to Mozes, "O hai! Outta ur tabby-nackels, d00dthx.2 U should go saiz this to Izrulites, for to IM me, Hey Ceiling Cat, I can has stuff :) and liek that, they gotta bring me teh cheezeburgers or other good stuff for impruvin teh conneckshun winkwink."

3 Offurings is liek good an all, buts teh haz to be not flawZord cheezeburger, and you can bringz it to mah front d00rz," saiz teh Ceiling Cat.4 Youz to put yer pawz on teh cheezeburger, n sai, 'Sarry for the pwnage, but u no how it is an stuff, kthxbai.'5 N then you is to kill teh Bullock (O NOES! Not teh Sander Bullock! She B hot n all!) in front of us d00dz, n leev teh meesy cheezeburger joocez all ovur teh playce, gross. Iz U retardid?6 Tehn take its buns off and cutz it up, so for kittehs no choke.7 But then you are all leik, 'Cheezeburger wai too rair! DO NOT WANT!' So then you mayk a big fire for to grill it up taystee n stuff kthx.8 Then you, liek, grill it up taystee n stuff kthx.9 But then thair be pikkulz and onyuns n crap on it! O NOES! BLECH! Tayk that garbajge off and stik it up yr harbl, we iz not amused. Srsly. Then we can has it now? Kthxyum.

55 Lee Coller  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:59:25pm

I just checked 5 English translations for the word "comrade" KJV, NIV, NASB, NLB, and Amplified. The only one, which is rarely used outside of academics, is the Amplified version (basically this version tries to be as wordy as possible and include all possible translations of everything). I'm guessing these guys see commies wherever they look.

56 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 1:59:58pm

re: #44 Walter L. Newton

Er, that's not communistic, since there is not state control of the "industry." Using that verse to "prove" that communism is an early Christian concept is as wrong as using "turn the other cheek" to indicate the passive nature of Christianity. It's not so.

And also, nowhere in those verses does it say "at gunpoint." With communism, you're never far away from the guns coming out, to enact the program.

57 Gavriel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:06pm

re: #6 Kosh's Shadow

Only if they're editing the original Hebrew and Greek.

That would be the original Hebrew and Aramaic

58 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:07pm

re: #48 HelloDare

When is the Atheist's Bible coming out? You know, the one that removes all references to God.

It's already been done: The Jefferson Bible.

59 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:11pm

re: #48 HelloDare

When is the Atheist's Bible coming out? You know, the one that removes all references to God.

Thomas Jefferson, practically did that, in his 4 column "cut and paste" of scripture, where he removed all of the supernatural references and left all the moral ones.

60 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:21pm

Another tacit assumption of this idiotic project is that the Bible was written in English. Instead of exploring the different interpretations of the original Aramaic or Greek, they fixate upon the connotation of the English translation. These Neanderthals know far less about their book of dogma than they should, given their reliance on it as a model not only for living but also for organizing the state.

61 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:45pm

re: #26 Gearhead

I don't suppose they're planning a conservative Quran after they finish this project.

That'd be redundant.

62 jdog29  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:00:54pm

re: #52 Ojoe

What will they do with Matthew 5:44?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;..."

(KJV)

just continue to ignore it.

63 Pianobuff  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:01:13pm

re: #46 LudwigVanQuixote

No the reality is that Moses and Jesus would not have been in the GOP. Make no doubt about that.

Funny, I would never imagined either of them to be in any party.

64 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:01:19pm

Last one from me. My personal favorite and this one is actually pretty poetic.

Psalm 121
1 A song to goez big up. I lookz upz at da big hillsez, I can has halps?
2 Yes I can haz halps, from Ceiling Cat, doer of Ceiling and Urf
3 He not let ur paw slipz, he not sleepz
4 Protektor of All Kittehs no sleepies no dreamies
5 Ceiling Cat ur protektor, He is ur shadows from da windowsill, He is ur right paw
6 In day, sun no make u go bai, moon not make u go bai either
7 Ceiling Cat make u safez from badness, He protektz ur invisible self
8 Celing Cat protektz ur in and ur out, forevaz!

65 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:01:23pm

re: #36 Lee Coller

This sounds like a bad joke. Is it possible this is someone's parody site?

They're competing with The Onion, it seems.

66 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:02:10pm

re: #65 bosforus

They're competing with The Onion, it seems.

No, reality is competing with the Onion.

67 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:02:27pm

re: #60 medaura18586

Another tacit assumption of this idiotic project is that the Bible was written in English. Instead of exploring the different interpretations of the original Aramaic or Greek, they fixate upon the connotation of the English translation. These Neanderthals know far less about their book of dogma than they should, given their reliance on it as a model not only for living but also for organizing the state.

Well doesn't it make you feel proud and loved and respected when people come and get to tell you what your book, written in your language, by your people says?

68 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:02:28pm

re: #61 The Sanity Inspector


I think if you change the Koran even one iota, it is not the Koran anymore.

It would, however, be the

Pop Koran.

69 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:02:28pm

re: #49 bosforus

Will this "repetitive forgiveness" be removed as well? Or will they go just start keeping literal tabs until they've forgiven someone 490 times?

A really BIG difference is the liberalism of scripture (developed from the heart outward) is NOT the liberalism of today (developed by the body politic).

70 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:01pm

re: #63 Pianobuff

Funny, I would never imagined either of them to be in any party.

Nor do I, but as the Great Carlin said, Jesus, lived with mom into his thirties, hung out with his friends and preached about not working, turned water into wine and complained about rich people ruining everything... That dude was a hippie.

71 drogheda  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:09pm

re: #52 Ojoe

What will they do with Matthew 5:44?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;..."

(KJV)

Suggest correcting to read:

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of their women"

// much improved, no?

72 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:15pm

re: #66 Guanxi88

No, reality is competing with the Onion.

For everyone's sake I hope The Onion wins.

73 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:29pm

Conservapedia are IDiots, and deserve almost any derision sent their direction.

74 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:32pm

re: #47 Charles

Conservapedia is run by Andrew Shlafly, the son of hardcore social con anti-feminist Phyllis Shlafly.

The front page of Conservapedia right now is full of creationist topics.

I mentioned in an earlier thread that Andrew Schlafly tried to bully Richard Lenski into providing a mountain of information after he had published his highly significant paper on the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. The nonsense of the whole affair is covered by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula website. Anybody who wants to read about it, plase start here:

Lenski gives Conservapaedia a lesson

Incidentally, the Lenski et al. experiment is covered at length in The Greatest Show on Earth and in outline in Why Evolution is True. It's a remarkable experiment and well worth reading about.

75 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:41pm

re: #37 Charles

Yes. The reasons are in the lounge thread from last night.

Wow.

76 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:04:59pm

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

medaura18586

Well doesn't it make you feel proud and loved and respected when people come and get to tell you what your book, written in your language, by your people says?

That seems to happen to us Jews all the time. Not just the conservatives, but all the Christians keep wanting to interpret the Torah for us.
Like we haven't been spending thousands of years arguing over the meanings!

77 Baier  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:05:12pm

re: #75 Ben Hur

Wow.

I know, right?

78 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:05:12pm

re: #71 drogheda

Ice oppose.

79 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:05:35pm
80 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:05:37pm

re: #76 Kosh's Shadow

That seems to happen to us Jews all the time. Not just the conservatives, but all the Christians keep wanting to interpret the Torah for us.
Like we haven't been spending thousands of years arguing over the meanings!

Nah it's not like all those children of Israel it keeps talking about are well - US.

81 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:06:30pm

re: #76 Kosh's Shadow

That seems to happen to us Jews all the time. Not just the conservatives, but all the Christians keep wanting to interpret the Torah for us.
Like we haven't been spending thousands of years arguing over the meanings!

You haven't, we have, no you didn't, yes we did. Three rabies, four opinions... :)

82 HelloDare  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:06:49pm

re: #58 Charles

re: #59 Walter L. Newton

Forgot about that. I actually read a tiny bit of it years ago. Many years ago.

83 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:07:26pm

re: #75 Ben Hur

Wow no kidding.

84 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:07:27pm

re: #77 Baier

I know, right?

Hard to believe, but understandable from Charles perspective.

85 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:07:28pm

re: #81 Walter L. Newton

You haven't, we have, no you didn't, yes we did. Three rabies, four opinions... :)

Sad but true that one. BTW, one is a convert, because there were only four opinions!

86 Gavriel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:07:56pm

re: #46 LudwigVanQuixote

...
No the reality is that Moses and Jesus would not have been in the GOP. Make no doubt about that.

That does not in any way mean they would have been in the Democrat party either, as they would have been considered socially conservative. Cherry picking bible concepts while ignoring all the others is dishonest (including many concepts and laws regarding private property).

87 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:08:02pm

re: #79 MikeySDCA

What is so wonderful is that these pinheads have wholly lost sight of the fact that they are dealing with a translation,so that their word games are meaningless.

And 2000 years of textual criticism which has done a pretty good job of discovering what belongs and what were later additions. It's a science, oh wait, these sort of conservatives have problems with science.

88 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:08:07pm

I've long believed that we needed to wrest control of the Bible from Communists.

...

wait, what?

/

89 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:08:36pm

My first impulse is that this is a joke, but I know it's probably not...

My first experience with Biblical revisionism came during a discussion with a Christian about the implicit condoning of slavery in Exodus. He was dumbfounded -- there was no such thing! I was dumbfounded that he was dumbfounded!

So he pulled out his Bible. We turned to Exodus. To my surprise, the word 'slave' had been changed in his Bible to 'servant'. Therefore, no slavery!

lol

90 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:08:46pm

Occasional Reader was banned?

THAT is even harder to believe.

91 Baier  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:09:13pm

re: #84 Ben Hur

Hard to believe, but understandable from Charles perspective.


Totally.

92 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:09:15pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

Sad but true that one. BTW, one is a convert, because there were only four opinions!

Clever, I hadn't heard that spin on the old saying.

93 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:09:39pm

re: #86 Gavriel

That does not in any way mean they would have been in the Democrat party either, as they would have been considered socially conservative. Cherry picking bible concepts while ignoring all the others is dishonest (including many concepts and laws regarding private property).

God forbid. Of course I do not see the universe as a two state system between GOP and DEM - actually both would piss off G-d a lot if you believe the bible. However, one thing that G-d really hates if you read the bible, is misuing the bible to be cruel to others. That is the real meaning to taking the name in vain BTW. The GOP beats the Dems hands down on that front.

94 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:10:59pm

For those who didn't already know, conservapedia is a treasure-trove of tripe and trolling!

Seriously

here is the proposed Dawkins bio.

Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1941, the son of agriculturalist Clinton John Dawkins. Dawkins spent his early childhood in Africa, returning to England with his family when he was eight. Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read Darwin’s works. [1], [2] Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. He remained at Oxford for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of Zoology at Berkeley. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious. [3] He returned to Oxford in 1970, and has remained there as a lecturer since. Despite this, Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures. In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear. [4] He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992; at present, the two are still married.

I like how it focusses on his personal life, neglects all mention of his other books and many achievements, and elides the distinction between 'lecturer' at Oxford and elsewhere. (Hint: a 'lecturer' in the UK is wot the US call a perfesser)

PS more fun conservapedia facts to come!

95 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:11:00pm

There's gonna be hell to pay for these jokers, screwing around with the word of the Lord.

96 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:11:35pm

I always figured conservipedia was written as assigned homework for Christian homeschoolers.

97 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:12:11pm

re: #93 LudwigVanQuixote

God forbid. Of course I do not see the universe as a two state system between GOP and DEM - actually both would piss off G-d a lot if you believe the bible. However, one thing that G-d really hates if you read the bible, is misuing the bible to be cruel to others. That is the real meaning to taking the name in vain BTW. The GOP beats the Dems hands down on that front.

Well, I'm going to have to put a little spin on this myself. A whole lot of progressives (not all, of course) who do cop to a faith, know even less about what's in scripture than the conservatives who make believe they know what's in scripture.

98 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:12:32pm

re: #96 Conservative Moonbat

I always figured conservipedia was written as assigned homework for Christian homeschoolers.

Dude, you aren't kidding. You know the story, right?

99 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:12:54pm

OR?! Zombie?!!!

I've been reading LGF since 2003. Turnover is natural, but it's still hard and surprising to see some people go.

100 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:13:07pm

re: #98 iceweasel

Dude, you aren't kidding. You know the story, right?

DO tell.

101 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:13:36pm

Will they leave in the Book of Armaments and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?


BBL

102 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:13:45pm

re: #48 HelloDare

When is the Atheist's Bible coming out? You know, the one that removes all references to God.

See: Jefferson, Thomas

103 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:14:05pm

re: #90 Ben Hur

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

104 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:14:21pm

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

Well doesn't it make you feel proud and loved and respected when people come and get to tell you what your book, written in your language, by your people says?

Silly rabbit. Jews aren't people!

/

105 webevintage  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:14:22pm

I had no idea there was such a place as Conservapedia.
Heard of Wikipedia and LOSTpedia and even DICKipedia, but never Conservapedia...

106 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:15:50pm

re: #98 iceweasel

Dude, you aren't kidding. You know the story, right?

I'm not sure?

107 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:15:50pm

Semi-OT (politico via the Airheads): Does Obama use God's name in vain?


For example, Obama has referenced the Sermon on the Mount in support of special rights for homosexuals, despite the Scriptures’ clear support of marriage between one man and one woman and its admonitions to celebrate sex inside the married relationship only.

While the Bible details that human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that life is a gift from God, Obama uses Scripture to support a mentality in support of abortion rights. Explaining his decision to lift an executive ban on federal funding of embryo-destructive stem cell research, Obama said, “As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”

Blasphemer!

108 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:16:27pm

Hey, what does conservapedia say about Obama?

Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro[1] (allegedly[2][3][4][5][6] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and previously served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2005-2008). Obama and his running mate Senator Joseph Biden won the presidential election[7] after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,[8] much of it raised from undisclosed or fraudulent donors.[9]

Gosh, that's just the opening sentences! What else, pray tell?

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observed that Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[23]

uh...

109 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:16:52pm
110 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:17:25pm

re: #109 mikalm

Piss off.

111 KernelPanic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:17:33pm

Please let the door hit you on the way out.

112 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:17:43pm

Saw that coming.

113 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:08pm

Saw that coming.

114 bofhell  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:10pm

re: #12 redshirt

They should change the commandment "You shalt not kill", to: "you shalt not murder"
Big difference there.

re: #25 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I've seen it written that way.

As I understand it, "לֹא תִּרְצָח ס לֹא תִּנְאָף" translates as "Thou shall not murder", not "Thou shall not kill". [See Shemot Ch. 20, V. 13

There are a number of instances in the Torah with individual Jews (in particular Moses), multiple Jews (Shimon and Levi), or the entire Jewish nation kill. In these instances there is a mitigating factor (Moses was defending a Jewish slave, Shimon and Levi were avenging the rape of their sister Dinah, and the Jewish nation as either defending itself or acting on direction of Hashem). This is different from murder, where the killing has no sound justification.

115 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:25pm

Saw it so well, I had to post it twice.

116 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:37pm

re: #109 mikalm

Well good bye cruel world.

117 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:42pm

Did you know?

Conservapedia was founded by Phyllis Schlafly's son, Andy. NPR did an interview with him a couple of years ago. Audio for it is here; you can almost see the interviewer biting the inside of his mouth, trying to keep from laughing in his face.

And, to be clear, I think Conservapedia is pretty doggone laughable, especially the science bits.

118 wrenchwench  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:44pm

re: #109 mikalm

Another who apparently totally misses the point--gone.

119 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:56pm

mikalm did seem a little restless earlier today.

120 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:18:59pm

re: #115 Charles

Saw it so well, I had to post it twice.

Well you do have two eyes.

121 sagehen  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:19:31pm

re: #44 Walter L. Newton

Er, that's not communistic, since there is not state control of the "industry." Using that verse to "prove" that communism is an early Christian concept is as wrong as using "turn the other cheek" to indicate the passive nature of Christianity. It's not so.


How does one reconcile "render unto Caesar" with the anti-tax movement?

122 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:19:31pm

re: #103 Charles

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Maybe they got him on that site by saying Adriana Lima was posting there.

123 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:19:52pm

re: #118 wrenchwench

Another who apparently totally misses the point--gone.

I'm expecting a lot of people to take that deliberately ignorant line.

124 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:20:04pm

re: #103 Charles

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Listen, I am 100% behind the "it's Charles site and he can do what he wants" belief, and I see from the above that OR was warned, but it is still shocking.

I think OR just wanted to keep in touch with others he was fond of, no?

125 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:20:20pm

re: #108 iceweasel

Hey, what does conservapedia say about Obama?

uh...

OMG... this is astonishing.

TECHNIQUES OF MIND CONTROL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

if only people didn't believe this crap.

126 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:20:24pm

What might conservapedia's topics list, under BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II AKA BARRY SOETORO?

Contents
[hide]

* 1 ACORN
* 2 Declining popularity
* 3 Obamunism
o 3.1 Larry Summers - Corrupt and Incompetent Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
o 3.2 Larry Summers and Leftist Economics
* 4 Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods
o 4.1 Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism
* 5 Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism
o 5.1 Obama's Charitable Giving
o 5.2 Liberal politicians and uncharitableness
o 5.3 Liberals and uncharitableness
o 5.4 Barack Obama's Brother George Obama and Poverty
o 5.5 Barack Obama's Treatment of George Obama and Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech
o 5.6 Barack Obama's Uncharitableness/Liberal Elitism and Social Darwinism
* 6 Michelle Obama and Liberal Elitism
o 6.1 Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping Allegations
o 6.2 Michelle Obama and Food Bank Incident
* 7 Presidential Election (2008)
* 8 Presidency (2009-Present)
o 8.1 Obama is likely the first Muslim President
o 8.2 Enemies list
o 8.3 Health care disinformation

Gosh, that shur luks oby-jek-teev tah me!

127 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:21:12pm

re: #124 Ben Hur

This is not open for discussion. I've already gone over the reasons again and again.

128 Ojoe  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:21:19pm

re: #115 Charles

I do not get that they think you are attacking religious faith itself. How nuts of them.

129 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:21:22pm

re: #68 Ojoe

*groan!* Translation: Wish I'd thought of that first! :)

130 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:21:27pm

Good Afternoon Lizards!
Hope everyone is well today...

131 wrenchwench  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:22:07pm

re: #124 Ben Hur

Listen, I am 100% behind the "it's Charles site and he can do what he wants" belief, and I see from the above that OR was warned, but it is still shocking.

I think OR just wanted to keep in touch with others he was fond of, no?

Did you miss the part about "SOME other site whose focus is more like what LGFs was, say, a year ago?" Dissatisfaction with the "direction" at LGF=flounce.

132 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:22:12pm

re: #124 Ben Hur

Listen, I am 100% behind the "it's Charles site and he can do what he wants" belief, and I see from the above that OR was warned, but it is still shocking.

I think OR just wanted to keep in touch with others he was fond of, no?

No, He didn't.

133 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:22:22pm

re: #114 bofhell

As I understand it, "לֹא תִּרְצ&# x05B8;ח ס לֹא תִּנְא&# x05B8;ף" translates as "Thou shall not murder", not "Thou shall not kill". [See Shemot Ch. 20, V. 13

There are a number of instances in the Torah with individual Jews (in particular Moses), multiple Jews (Shimon and Levi), or the entire Jewish nation kill. In these instances there is a mitigating factor (Moses was defending a Jewish slave, Shimon and Levi were avenging the rape of their sister Dinah, and the Jewish nation as either defending itself or acting on direction of Hashem). This is different from murder, where the killing has no sound justification.

It is thou shalt not murder.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

If it was thou shalt not kill, then Moses could never command forming an army. Glad to clear that one up.

134 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:22:31pm

re: #121 sagehen

How does one reconcile "render unto Caesar" with the anti-tax movement?

There is no reconciling. Why would you think I would be able to reconcile that? Paul was very clear in his advise to obey the ruling government and pay tax that was due.

I'm not sure why you asked me this?

135 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:22:46pm

re: #127 Charles

This is not open for discussion. I've already gone over the reasons again and again.

Understood.

I'm just shocked.

I count OR as a friend.

136 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:24:17pm

re: #126 iceweasel

What might conservapedia's topics list, under BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II AKA BARRY SOETORO?

Contents
[hide]

* 1 ACORN
* 2 Declining popularity
* 3 Obamunism
o 3.1 Larry Summers - Corrupt and Incompetent Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
o 3.2 Larry Summers and Leftist Economics
* 4 Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods
o 4.1 Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism
* 5 Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism
o 5.1 Obama's Charitable Giving
o 5.2 Liberal politicians and uncharitableness
o 5.3 Liberals and uncharitableness
o 5.4 Barack Obama's Brother George Obama and Poverty
o 5.5 Barack Obama's Treatment of George Obama and Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech
o 5.6 Barack Obama's Uncharitableness/Liberal Elitism and Social Darwinism
* 6 Michelle Obama and Liberal Elitism
o 6.1 Michelle Obama and Patient Dumping Allegations
o 6.2 Michelle Obama and Food Bank Incident
* 7 Presidential Election (2008)
* 8 Presidency (2009-Present)
o 8.1 Obama is likely the first Muslim President
o 8.2 Enemies list
o 8.3 Health care disinformation

Gosh, that shur luks oby-jek-teev tah me!

Holy Cows! It's like you found the Agenda for the most recent meeting of the Inner Circle of the Star Chamber of the Trilateral Commission of Insanity.

137 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:24:28pm

re: #94 iceweasel

"Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear."

Subtext: However, we'd like to come up with some ludicrous fabrication, which will help to confirm that he's a degenerate atheist.

138 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:24:58pm

re: #137 John Neverbend

Subtext: However, we'd like to come up with some ludicrous fabrication, which will help to confirm that he's a degenerate atheist.

I think the fact of the divorce suffices for their purposes.

139 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:25:20pm

re: #136 Guanxi88

Holy Cows! It's like you found the Agenda for the most recent meeting of the Inner Circle of the Star Chamber of the Trilateral Commission of Insanity.

Wrong. That was LAST MONTH'S AGENDA. See, you know nothing of what you are talking about :)

140 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:25:32pm

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

Well doesn't it make you feel proud and loved and respected when people come and get to tell you what your book, written in your language, by your people says?

If I believed the secrets of creation, the messages of a divinity lied with the Biblical scripture, I would drop every earthly pursuit and learn the original language in which they were written in order to study them, and thus get closer to the word of God. But not so with these people.

Also, any conservative who claims that Biblical Scriptures should dictate the morality of society while claiming that such morality be one of free enterprise and individual rights is insane -- which is why I always maintained that the social-conservative and free-market camps were irreconcilable due to contrary essences. The Bible is a very socialist document; it deals with an agrarian, collectivist society. Both the Old and New Testaments are rife with self-less ethics, feeding the hungry and tending to the poor and many many more similar lessons. In fact, I maintain that socialism and the Left in general represent distilled ethical norms from the Bible stripped of their theistic aspects.

That there are Christians and Jews of all political denominations should be ample clue, in and of itself, that religion does not dictate a political orientation, and thus basing a political movement on the supposed core tenets of a religious creed to which people of other political orientation may lay claim to, is a very foolish idea. Does Christianity or Judaism necessarily lead to conservatism, however defined? No, since there are plenty of liberal and socialist Jews and Christians out there. So stop trying to claim those religions as the source for your political ideology!

The conservatives tend to focus on the gay bashing and other sexual repressiveness as exemplified in the Bible. The liberals tend to focus on the extreme altruism presented therein. Two different sides of the same coin. Rather than revise ancient texts to fit with their dementia, they should be advised to stop molesting any scripture and start thinking of politics, economics, and social ethics independently from any religious system.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears...

141 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:25:52pm

re: #139 Walter L. Newton

Wrong. That was LAST MONTH'S AGENDA. See, you know nothing of what you are talking about :)

You're right! I don't see the Olympics on there.

142 ryannon  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:07pm

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are do.

143 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:18pm

re: #140 medaura18586

If I believed the secrets of creation, the messages of a divinity lied with the Biblical scripture, I would drop every earthly pursuit and learn the original language in which they were written in order to study them, and thus get closer to the word of God. But not so with these people.

Also, any conservative who claims that Biblical Scriptures should dictate the morality of society while claiming that such morality be one of free enterprise and individual rights is insane -- which is why I always maintained that the social-conservative and free-market camps were irreconcilable due to contrary essences. The Bible is a very socialist document; it deals with an agrarian, collectivist society. Both the Old and New Testaments are rife with self-less ethics, feeding the hungry and tending to the poor and many many more similar lessons. In fact, I maintain that socialism and the Left in general represent distilled ethical norms from the Bible stripped of their theistic aspects.

That there are Christians and Jews of all political denominations should be ample clue, in and of itself, that religion does not dictate a political orientation, and thus basing a political movement on the supposed core tenets of a religious creed to which people of other political orientation may lay claim to, is a very foolish idea. Does Christianity or Judaism necessarily lead to conservatism, however defined? No, since there are plenty of liberal and socialist Jews and Christians out there. So stop trying to claim those religions as the source for your political ideology!

The conservatives tend to focus on the gay bashing and other sexual repressiveness as exemplified in the Bible. The liberals tend to focus on the extreme altruism presented therein. Two different sides of the same coin. Rather than revise ancient texts to fit with their dementia, they should be advised to stop molesting any scripture and start thinking of politics, economics, and social ethics independently from any religious system.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears...

I thought it was rather eloquent.

144 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:24pm

re: #140 medaura18586

What?

/sorry. couldn't resist.

145 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:28pm

re: #105 webevintage

I had no idea there was such a place as Conservapedia.
Heard of Wikipedia and LOSTpedia and even DICKipedia, but never Conservapedia...

oh where have you been? :)

Nasty trickse libs had fun vandalising it in the first few months. For example, the Theory of Intelligent Falling:

Gravity:

"The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe."

heh.

146 ryannon  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:33pm

re: #142 ryannon

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are do.

147 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:26:46pm

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

148 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:27:16pm

re: #126 iceweasel

They stole #3 from me!

149 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:14pm

re: #147 Charles

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

"Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Maybe it will make a comeback?

150 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:14pm

re: #147 Charles

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

Biblical inerrancy, I'm sure, will be invoked for this and certain other passages.

151 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:15pm

The bottom line here is that it's mostly those wanting theocracies who attempt to use religious texts for political ends.

152 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:25pm

Well. Aren't they special.

I suppose since the Bible, like reality, has a well-known liberal bias...

Oh, I can't even be funny about this. Charles, this is joke, right? You're in on it with the webmasters...come on...you can stop pulling our legs now...

Am I allowed to feel a tiny bit wrathful now toward people who've been telling me for years that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives accept the Word of God and don't tinker with it?

153 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:30pm

re: #140 medaura18586


Of course this will fall on deaf ears...

I'm sorry, could you say that again, please?

Seriously, however, there was some logic behind my suggestion in a prior thread that Mr. Schlafly et al. bother to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It's a tall order, no doubt, but as you point out, if they're serious about interpreting the bible "correctly", what better place to start?

154 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:31pm

They are following a great tradition started by Jefferson, which they no doubt know nothing of.

155 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:28:45pm

re: #147 Charles

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

Not sure... Some may claim that a "conservative" practice... Ask RS McCain.

156 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:29:25pm

re: #147 Charles

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

Maybe they'll have Robert Stacy McCain edit those parts. As we all know, slavery wasn't all that bad, and besides, those slaves were kind of asking for it.

157 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:29:34pm

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

158 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:29:36pm

re: #151 Thanos

The bottom line here is that it's mostly those wanting theocracies who attempt to use religious texts for political ends.

That's like using a book of Grimms fairy tales to design a kingdom.

159 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:29:42pm

re: #126 iceweasel

Dat Obama iz da debol!

160 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:30:09pm

Hate mail count so far today: 4

Support mail: 3

The ratio seems to be improving.

161 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:30:28pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

"Earth - mostly harmless."

It has a similar comical effect.

162 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:30:33pm

re: #8 redshirt

If it ain't in the original Sumerian (wild guess) then the whole book is nothing but a bunch of peoples opinions of the meaning anyways.
Translation is open to interpretation. (made myself laugh with that one!)

Well, it is. Translation is a really complicated thing. Now, the KJV was done by committee, but at least it was a specially selected crack committee. And they were GOOD. And they were interested in expressing the word of God, not their own political ideas, mostly. (There were some politics there too.)

163 KernelPanic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:30:43pm

re: #160 Charles

Hate mail count so far today: 4

Support mail: 3

The ratio seems to be improving.

Still think you should "monitize the hate!", heh.

164 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:30:50pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

rejects logical and biblical standards... are they equating the two? If so, they either don't understand the Bible or they don't understand logic... most likely both.

165 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:31:06pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

Oh my great G-d... Where on the lord's blue earth are these people coming from? Seriously?

166 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:31:36pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

In my limited experience logical standards and biblical standards aren't really compatible in practice.

167 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:32:36pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

The sarcasm reads like an ED article.

168 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:33:01pm

re: #89 Ray in TX

My first impulse is that this is a joke, but I know it's probably not...

My first experience with Biblical revisionism came during a discussion with a Christian about the implicit condoning of slavery in Exodus. He was dumbfounded -- there was no such thing! I was dumbfounded that he was dumbfounded!

So he pulled out his Bible. We turned to Exodus. To my surprise, the word 'slave' had been changed in his Bible to 'servant'. Therefore, no slavery!

lol

LOL...

"The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.[2]."

To your surprise, that's more accurate in rendering the ancient Hebrew in many cases.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

169 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:33:43pm

re: #168 Walter L. Newton

LOL...

"The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.[2]."

To your surprise, that's more accurate in rendering the ancient Hebrew in many cases.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Just don't mention "Maiden."

170 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:33:44pm

Just a little Revelation Chapter 22...

18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Uh oh...

171 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:33:49pm

re: #44 Walter L. Newton

Er, that's not communistic, since there is not state control of the "industry." Using that verse to "prove" that communism is an early Christian concept is as wrong as using "turn the other cheek" to indicate the passive nature of Christianity. It's not so.

Fine, except that people choosing to live in communes tend to get blasted by these sorts of folks as hippies. It's not government control they're opposed to, it's any sort of communalism.

172 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:34:04pm

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

That's like using a book of Grimms fairy tales to design a kingdom.

Or taking Moby Dick along on a fishing trip.

173 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:34:28pm

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Oh my great G-d... Where on the lord's blue earth are these people coming from? Seriously?

I think they are mostly high school aged Christian homeschoolers doing it as assignments.

174 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:34:55pm

re: #169 Ben Hur

Just don't mention "Maiden."

Well, my point is Ray was trying to give us an example of biblical revisionism, and it wasn't, it was an example of fine tuning corrupt translations.

175 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:34:59pm

re: #173 Conservative Moonbat

I think they are mostly high school aged Christian homeschoolers doing it as assignments.

That's a generous assessment.

176 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:35:21pm

re: #163 KernelPanic

I feel sure someone does monitize it, 24/7... you have to keep up with that stuff in case a real red flag appears. Monetizing it for a profit is not a bad idea, though.
:)

177 Crimsonfisted  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:35:21pm

re: #90 Ben Hur

Occasional Reader was banned?

THAT is even harder to believe.

When was THAT?

178 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:35:40pm

re: #177 Crimsonfisted

When was THAT?

Keep scrolling down.

179 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:35:49pm

re: #57 Gavriel

That would be the original Hebrew and Aramaic

The NT is Greek.

180 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:36:15pm

re: #175 Guanxi88

That's a generous assessment.

And that's a faulty assessment. Why do people ALWAYS equate homeschooling with Christians?

181 bosforus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:36:36pm

re: #170 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

The funny thing is they may read your comment and actually think for a moment that they might be in the wrong, not realizing that for several reasons those verses rather obviously refer only to the Book of Revelations.

182 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:36:58pm

re: #94 iceweasel

For those who didn't already know, conservapedia is a treasure-trove of tripe and trolling!

Seriously

here is the proposed Dawkins bio.

I like how it focusses on his personal life, neglects all mention of his other books and many achievements, and elides the distinction between 'lecturer' at Oxford and elsewhere. (Hint: a 'lecturer' in the UK is wot the US call a perfesser)

PS more fun conservapedia facts to come!

It also presented the publication of his first book as some kind of fortunate accident. Hilarious!

"hey honey, look at this completed manuscript I mysteriously found sitting next to my typewriter. Wow, it makes a compelling case for genetic evolution. This could be our lucky break! Pack the bags.. we're moving to Californy! Swimming pools.. movie stars!"

183 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:37:00pm

re: #177 Crimsonfisted

I know. I just can't keep up. I've been here a lot to day and when I just reopened, dammit, some drama went down and I missed it...

184 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:37:03pm

re: #60 medaura18586

Another tacit assumption of this idiotic project is that the Bible was written in English. Instead of exploring the different interpretations of the original Aramaic or Greek, they fixate upon the connotation of the English translation. These Neanderthals know far less about their book of dogma than they should, given their reliance on it as a model not only for living but also for organizing the state.

They appear to have a general retranslation project going on as well, which is, frankly, ludicrous. The Bible has been translated by a long line of people who knew what the hell they were doing.

185 rwmofo  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:37:26pm

OT: I added lime juice in my salsa. Coool. Seems like a lizard pointed that out before.

Oh, watch what you touch after you've handled jalapenos.

...I mean don't touch your eyes. This post is rated "G."

186 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:37:45pm

re: #164 medaura18586

re: #166 Locker

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Conservapedia was founded in 2007 I think? 2006? and the initial entries were all written by homeschoolers.

The snarkosphere (by which I mean the snarky part of the liberal/progessive/left blogosphere) went crazy with delight. Entries were vandalised: entries about dinosaurs asserting that "jesus rode this one" went unnoticed for weeks. You couldn't tell what entries had been made up and which were real because they were all so awful and hilarious.

Ah, good times.

187 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:37:49pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

I note that they can't spell "dilemma". J.B.S. Haldane

The discussion of Lenski's experiment is high comedy.

188 Guanxi88  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:38:12pm

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

And that's a faulty assessment. Why do people ALWAYS equate homeschooling with Christians?

I was talking about the high schoolers bit.

189 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:38:48pm

re: #184 SanFranciscoZionist

They appear to have a general retranslation project going on as well, which is, frankly, ludicrous. The Bible has been translated by a long line of people who knew what the hell they were doing.

At times it was translated by people who knew what they wanted it to say, but in general, there has been a good 2000 years of textual criticism which has cleaned up and confirmed most of what we have now a days. You still have to be careful.

190 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:38:53pm

re: #182 Ray in TX

It also presented the publication of his first book as some kind of fortunate accident. Hilarious!

"hey honey, look at this completed manuscript I mysteriously found sitting next to my typewriter. Wow, it makes a compelling case for genetic evolution. This could be our lucky break! Pack the bags.. we're moving to Californy! Swimming pools.. movie stars!"

An intelligent designer left the MS there!

191 J.S.  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:38:53pm

hmm...Will this be in competition with the LOL Cat Bible Translation Project? wiki here... (I recall over a decade ago some scholars who wanted to find something Jesus said which could be authenticated through secondary sources...if I recall correctly the net result was a single sentence... I don't recall what it was...)

192 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:39:00pm

Crazy is who crazy does...

193 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:39:50pm

re: #86 Gavriel

That does not in any way mean they would have been in the Democrat party either, as they would have been considered socially conservative. Cherry picking bible concepts while ignoring all the others is dishonest (including many concepts and laws regarding private property).

Socially conservative? I can describe Jesus in a lot of ways, but socially conservative ain't one of them.

194 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:01pm

re: #168 Walter L. Newton

LOL...

"The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.[2]."

To your surprise, that's more accurate in rendering the ancient Hebrew in many cases.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Read the actual verses and explain to me what the difference is between a servant and a slave within the context of Exodus. If it's forced to work like a slave, punished like a slave, and treated as property like a slave, then... QUACK.

195 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:06pm

re: #177 Crimsonfisted

Many lizards have decided to make like that little scene from "South Park" (I think it was the very first episode) where Kyle says...

"Quick, Ike, do your impersonation of David Caruso's career." And Ike jumps out of the hovering spaceship.

196 debutaunt  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:22pm

re: #90 Ben Hur

Occasional Reader was banned?

THAT is even harder to believe.

What?

197 martinsmithy  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:33pm

re: #2 drogheda

So they're just going to throw out the New Testament then?

Not just the new testament: [Link: www.reddit.com...]

There was once a nation that suffered through brutal socialism - forced equality, redistribution of wealth, salary caps, forced charity, and income tax.

This nation was led by a ruler who enforced the laws on threat of death. This ruler demanded that each person pay a 20% income tax annually. 10% was devoted to the poor and immigrants (this nation had virtually no immigration restrictions) and the other 10% went to government workers and infrastructure.

The richest members of society had restraints placed on their ability to generate wealth - an extra portion of their potential profits (above an established cap) was devoted for the poor and immigrants (on top of the 10%).

Labor laws were also strict. Weekends were enforced. Anyone caught working (or forcing others to work) on the day off was severely punished. And every seven years, workers and owners would take an extended vacation, living off of state reserves and private savings.

Most shockingly, the land and wealth of the nation was nationalized once each generation (about 50 years)- debts were forgiven, land and resources were redistributed, and each family restarted with a share of the wealth regardless of how successful or unsuccessful they or their forefathers had been.

So where was this socialist hellhole and who was it's tyrannical leader?

The nation was called Israel and the leader was named Yahweh. You can read all about it in Deuteronomy.

198 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:37pm

re: #181 bosforus

Oh, of course.

199 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:42pm

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

And that's a faulty assessment. Why do people ALWAYS equate homeschooling with Christians?

I didn't. I specifically said Christian homeschoolers to differentiate them from other homeschoolers. Had I just said homeschoolers while specifically referring to the Christian homeschooling movement I'd have been doing what you said.

200 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:40:43pm

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

And that's a faulty assessment. Why do people ALWAYS equate homeschooling with Christians?

I have no doubt that it's a faulty assessment. To answer why this folk tends to equate home schooling with Christians or other religions/denominations is the perceived desire for a high level of control over their children and a wish to indoctrinate them in the belief system of the faithful.

That being said it seems highly likely that there are families of means who chose neither public nor private school to educate their children for reasons such as safety, educational standards, independent study, arts programs, etc.

201 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:41:51pm

Notice how the last gasp dying hard right prunes are trying to ensconce their children in positions of power? Here we have Phylis Schafly's idiot child, in Kentucky we get Ron Paul's running for office.

202 Liberal Classic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:41:53pm

Funny news, but Conservapedia is low-hanging fruit. ;)

203 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:41:59pm

O/T but not so much,,, PBS has a special program on Nova tomorrow night called ' Darwin's Darkest Dilemma', about Charles Darwin's having to decide whether or not to take his theory public. Should be interesting, and even if you're not, it stars Henry Ian Cusick... Desmond from Lost.

204 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:42:55pm

re: #192 medaura18586

Seriously? They want to spread the belief that it was written in English?
That's like a sitcom.

205 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:43:14pm

re: #191 J.S.

hmm...Will this be in competition with the LOL Cat Bible Translation Project? wiki here... (I recall over a decade ago some scholars who wanted to find something Jesus said which could be authenticated through secondary sources...if I recall correctly the net result was a single sentence... I don't recall what it was...)

It depends on what you would consider secondary sources? We have a number of gnostic books that were not included in the canon that does confirm certain sayings. We have at least two references to Jesus' existence in writings by Josephus and Tacitus.

But, you can also find other "messiah's" of that time saying similar things, and you can also find general ideas about a physical "son of G-d" in earlier non-biblical works.

There is a lot more material out there then just the nicely compacted greek scriptures used by christians.

206 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:43:16pm

re: #203 tradewind

O/T but not so much,,, PBS has a special program on Nova tomorrow night called ' Darwin's Darkest Dilemma', about Charles Darwin's having to decide whether or not to take his theory public. Should be interesting, and even if you're not, it stars Henry Ian Cusick... Desmond from Lost.

Nice heads up. I'm going to use your little launching pad to link back to another excellent PBS program:

Nova - Intelligent Design On Trial

Most excellent.

207 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:43:25pm

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

It is thou shalt not murder.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

If it was thou shalt not kill, then Moses could never command forming an army. Glad to clear that one up.

However, I feel that I must note that it's not 'liberal bias' that produced the 'thou shalt not kill' formulation. That's the KJV.

208 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:43:42pm

re: #201 Thanos

Ron Paul would have to be said to be so far right that he's crossed over into the other end.

209 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:44:22pm

re: #186 iceweasel

re: #166 Locker

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Conservapedia was founded in 2007 I think? 2006? and the initial entries were all written by homeschoolers.

The snarkosphere (by which I mean the snarky part of the liberal/progessive/left blogosphere) went crazy with delight. Entries were vandalised: entries about dinosaurs asserting that "jesus rode this one" went unnoticed for weeks. You couldn't tell what entries had been made up and which were real because they were all so awful and hilarious.

Ah, good times.

I copied over the wikipedia article on toothbruses and added the lines "Jesus did not use a toothbrush because they had not been invented yet when he was alive. It can therefore be concluded that Jesus had bad teeth."

210 medaura18586  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:44:25pm

re: #204 tradewind

I don't know what belief they are trying to spread, but they are not discussing the original words used and taking issues with their translation--not from what I can see. Instead, they are debating the English words as if they held the original precise meaning.

211 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:44:37pm

later! have fun!

212 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:44:38pm

re: #208 tradewind

Ron Paul would have to be said to be so far right that he's crossed over into the other end.

Ron Paul won't fly in Planes.. He demands the plane have 2 right wings

213 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:44:40pm

re: #200 Locker

I have no doubt that it's a faulty assessment. To answer why this folk tends to equate home schooling with Christians or other religions/denominations is the perceived desire for a high level of control over their children and a wish to indoctrinate them in the belief system of the faithful.

That being said it seems highly likely that there are families of means who chose neither public nor private school to educate their children for reasons such as safety, educational standards, independent study, arts programs, etc.

Agreed.

214 Crimsonfisted  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:45:08pm

re: #183 tradewind

I know. I just can't keep up. I've been here a lot to day and when I just reopened, dammit, some drama went down and I missed it...


me too. I think I am all caught up now.

215 rwmofo  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:45:54pm

re: #208 tradewind

Ron Paul would have to be said to be so far right that he's crossed over into the other end.

Heh. That's an apt characterization.

216 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:45:55pm

re: #164 medaura18586

rejects logical and biblical standards... are they equating the two? If so, they either don't understand the Bible or they don't understand logic... most likely both.

'Natural law'. The key term is 'natural law'. At least for the Catholics among them, which, God help us, poor suffering children of Eve, there probably are at least a few.

217 tradewind  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:45:58pm

re: #210 medaura18586

That's just sad.
How come I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I never run into any of these characters?

218 What, me worry?  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:46:23pm

re: #133 LudwigVanQuixote

It is thou shalt not murder.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing.

If it was thou shalt not kill, then Moses could never command forming an army. Glad to clear that one up.

Yep. I would also add that one needs to kill to eat. One can kill in self-defense and one kills during war. None of these things are considered a sin. Murder is malicious intent.

219 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:48:00pm

re: #194 Ray in TX

Read the actual verses and explain to me what the difference is between a servant and a slave within the context of Exodus. If it's forced to work like a slave, punished like a slave, and treated as property like a slave, then... QUACK.

You said changing the word "slave" to "servant" was revisionism. No it's not. The spinning of the historical meaning behind servant and slave is revisionism.

I was simply stating that the word was not mistranslated. Your "friend' certainly may have been misusing it.

Quack.

220 checked08  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:49:20pm

speaking of crazy christians
[Link: www.dallasnews.com...]

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said he wants Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former U.S. Navy chaplain, to "stop asking Jesus to plunder my fields ... seize my assets, kill me and my family then wipe away our descendants for 10 generations."
221 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:50:38pm

re: #217 tradewind

That's just sad.
How come I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I never run into any of these characters?

Me too. But I occasionally do... I laugh at them... right in their faces...

222 rwmofo  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:50:44pm

re: #217 tradewind

That's just sad.
How come I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I never run into any of these characters?

Maybe because a lot of people don't have a compelling need to push their views on others. If that's what they believe, let them run with it as long as they're not bothering anyone.

223 What, me worry?  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:51:10pm

re: #157 iceweasel

Conservapedia's definition of "Liberal":

ROFL.

Why didn't that end with WE HATE THEM!

224 sattv4u2  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:51:17pm

re: #218 marjoriemoon

Yep. I would also add that one needs to kill to eat. One can kill in self-defense and one kills during war. None of these things are considered a sin. Murder is malicious intent.

I just hate hearing the broccoli screaming when I lop it's crown off the stalk!

//

225 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:51:33pm

re: #208 tradewind

Ron Paul would have to be said to be so far right that he's crossed over into the other end.

Ron Paul has found the place where the sidewalk ends, and kept right on going.

226 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:51:43pm

re: #221 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Me too. But I occasionally do... I laugh at them... right in their faces...

That's productive.

227 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:52:26pm

re: #223 marjoriemoon

ROFL.

Why didn't that end with WE HATE THEM!

It's implied in the translation!

228 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:53:04pm

re: #217 tradewind

That's just sad.
How come I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I never run into any of these characters?

You choose to hang out with sane people? Or perhaps these people see that you are sane, and choose not to hang out with you? I couldn't tell you, but I'm glad you're not in daily contact with this craziness. That could kill you.

229 J.S.  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:54:12pm

re: #205 Walter L. Newton

there was a *huge* scholarly project -- I've forgotten the name of this project - was it in the UK? (don't recall) (I followed the "debates", long and tedious ones -- I was not all that interested, since it was about the "new" testament sayings of Jesus) -- but the outcome was a single, banal sentence -- that was the outcome of this intensive, years long, academic study...(it was interesting in following how they would whittle down the statements...)

230 Annar  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:55:23pm
Other problematic commie terms include “volunteer,” “comrade,” and “laborer.” (You couldn’t write comedy like this.)


But they seem to be doing a bang up job of it. Wait 'till they get to the Apocalypse!

231 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:55:49pm

re: #226 Walter L. Newton

That's productive.

*curtsies*

232 sattv4u2  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:57:07pm

re: #231 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

*curtsies*

NOT a pretty site!

233 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:57:27pm

re: #219 Walter L. Newton

You said changing the word "slave" to "servant" was revisionism. No it's not. The spinning of the historical meaning behind servant and slave is revisionism.

I was simply stating that the word was not mistranslated. Your "friend' certainly may have been misusing it.

Quack.

But if the context clearly shows that they are talking about slaves, then the proper translation is "slave." Playing semantic games and using a more politically-correct (or convenient) translation is exactly the kind of tactic that is going on at Conservapedia.

Bonk.

234 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:57:28pm

Time to head home, with some errands on the way.
Back much later.

235 SpaceJesus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 2:57:59pm

needs more mention of outer space

236 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:02:29pm

On topic to the thread:

They not only know what the Bible "should say", they know what Conservatism "should be".

FOAD on both counts, assholes.

237 acwgusa  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:03:15pm

Well, since I made an ass of myself a few threads back, I need to apologize for that.

I'm sorry for acting like the symbol of the Democratic Party.

238 Egregious Philbin  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:04:10pm

I like the part where Jesus gets pissed off at the fig tree and makes it die. Because I want the creator of the universe getting into petty arguments with trees.

239 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:05:33pm

More stupidity, posted several minutes ago in the spin-offs.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

They exposed nothing except their own blatant ignorance.

240 SpaceJesus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:05:56pm

actually a conservative version of the bible where Jesus is a Nascar driver strung out on oxycontin would be pretty awesome.

241 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:06:55pm

re: #238 Egregious Philbin

I like the part where Jesus gets pissed off at the fig tree and makes it die. Because I want the creator of the universe getting into petty arguments with trees.

I always liked the part where god took a rib from Adam to make Eve. Seems to support my love of watching my wife eat BBQ naked.

242 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:07:31pm

re: #233 Ray in TX

But if the context clearly shows that they are talking about slaves, then the proper translation is "slave." Playing semantic games and using a more politically-correct (or convenient) translation is exactly the kind of tactic that is going on at Conservapedia.

Bonk.

You evidently know nothing about how ancient texts are translated, and I am not going to give you a translation 101 course on LGF.

Here are some simple concepts that I can go into.

There are numerous reasons a word that has more than one meaning will be translated differently depending on context. Also, word usage is compared to other texts, and finally, historical and cultural considerations are used.

It's not the necessarily the fault of the translation that you will see this sort of differences, most of the time the differences are corrected with in the science of translation and textual criticism.

Most of the time the REAL PROBLEM is in the person that is reading the text, and has NO TRAINING in how to recognize the nuances of a translated text, nor the schooling to understand the history or culture behind the text he/she is reading.

You are being very narrow assuming that there is something wrong or underhanded with the many of ways to translate the hebrew word.

Go study some of the basics of translation.

243 Randall Gross  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:07:52pm

Btw: from a quick scan of nutball group emails I get whether I want them or not, the latest ODS campaign will be "who paid for his tuition" and the fact that he's read "Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria.

244 Egregious Philbin  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:08:20pm

Are they gonna keep the part about not cooking a baby goat in its mother's milk? Because that is so relevant these days.

Damned liberal goats!

245 voirdire  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:09:43pm

Those words are found in the Sinaitic and Alexandrine Manuscripts, in the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, in the Latin Vulgate and in both the Curetonian and Peshitta Syriac Versions. However, they are not found in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Codex Bezae and the Sinaitic codex of the Syriac translation, nor Wescott and Hortt. The weight of modern scholarship is to include them.

246 rwmofo  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:10:07pm

re: #240 SpaceJesus

actually a conservative version of the bible where Jesus is a Nascar driver strung out on oxycontin would be pretty awesome.

Heh.

247 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:10:55pm

re: #243 Thanos

Btw: from a quick scan of nutball group emails I get whether I want them or not, the latest ODS campaign will be "who paid for his tuition" and the fact that he's read "Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria.

They're intuition now? They should try rationality.

/(sorry, Thanos, couldn't resist) ... and it is kind old news, isn't it?

248 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:12:03pm

re: #238 Egregious Philbin

I like the part where Jesus gets pissed off at the fig tree and makes it die. Because I want the creator of the universe getting into petty arguments with trees.

This is serious stuff: God Hates Figs

249 Egregious Philbin  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:12:39pm

I would submit the lyrics to John Prine's Jesus: the Missing Years

250 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:12:51pm

re: #47 Charles

Conservapedia is run by Andrew Schlafly, the son of hardcore social con anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.

The front page of Conservapedia right now is full of creationist topics.

Beat me to it.

251 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:13:13pm

re: #140 medaura18586

Both the Old and New Testaments are rife with self-less ethics, feeding the hungry and tending to the poor and many many more similar lessons. In fact, I maintain that socialism and the Left in general represent distilled ethical norms from the Bible stripped of their theistic aspects.

You miss the point. As a conservative Christian, I believe in caring for the poor and feeding the hungry through my church. We have 10 mission fields that address these needs both in our community and in the world writ large.

Liberals tend to believe this is the purpose of government. The are always very generous with other peoples money. That isn't what the New Testament said. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to help the poor, he told his disciples to do it!

252 John Neverbend  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:15:47pm

re: #202 Liberal Classic

Funny news, but Conservapedia is low-hanging fruit. ;)

Can it get any lower than this?

In the section on relativity, it says, "Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities."

253 Locker  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:16:47pm

re: #251 rwdflynavy

You miss the point. As a conservative Christian, I believe in caring for the poor and feeding the hungry through my church. We have 10 mission fields that address these needs both in our community and in the world writ large.

Liberals tend to believe this is the purpose of government. The are always very generous with other peoples money. That isn't what the New Testament said. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to help the poor, he told his disciples to do it!

Well the money you are using didn't fall from thin air, unless you've got some special connection. Seems like the church is being generous with other people's money, just on a smaller scale.

Additionally I don't recall the New Testament being adopted as the guide for what government should do and not do.

254 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:18:50pm

re: #253 Locker

Well the money you are using didn't fall from thin air, unless you've got some special connection. Seems like the church is being generous with other people's money, just on a smaller scale.

Additionally I don't recall the New Testament being adopted as the guide for what government should do and not do.

No, it was generated in a capitalist society and donated by members of my church. Not received as a tax from the government redistributing wealth. As to your second point, we are in agreement.

255 sattv4u2  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:19:21pm

re: #253 Locker

Well the money you are using didn't fall from thin air, unless you've got some special connection. Seems like the church is being generous with other people's money, just on a smaller scale.

Additionally I don't recall the New Testament being adopted as the guide for what government should do and not do.

HUGE difference

The monies given to the church(s) is voluntary
The monies taken by the gov't,,, not so much!

256 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:19:33pm

re: #252 John Neverbend

Can it get any lower than this?

In the section on relativity, it says, "Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities."

Jaw drop. That is just depravity, obvious, cynical lying for profit, taking advantage of rubes who don't have any idea just how much experimental verification there is for relativity.

257 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:21:25pm

re: #253 Locker

Well the money you are using didn't fall from thin air, unless you've got some special connection. Seems like the church is being generous with other people's money, just on a smaller scale.

Additionally I don't recall the New Testament being adopted as the guide for what government should do and not do.

There's a big difference, imo, in my donating a specific sum of money that I have determined I want to give, for a specific purpose that I want to support, vs. the government using my involuntary tax payments for whatever IT decides is important.

258 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:21:51pm

re: #253 Locker

Well the money you are using didn't fall from thin air, unless you've got some special connection. Seems like the church is being generous with other people's money, just on a smaller scale.

Additionally I don't recall the New Testament being adopted as the guide for what government should do and not do.

Maybe we can get a donation from Gandhi?

259 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:22:09pm

re: #257 reine.de.tout

There's a big difference, imo, in my donating a specific sum of money that I have determined I want to give, for a specific purpose that I want to support, vs. the government using my involuntary tax payments for whatever IT decides is important.

It seems Locker is being deliberately obtuse.

260 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:22:38pm
The interesting thing about this project: it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.

Well, there goes YEC - not.

*shakes head in amazement*

261 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:22:53pm

re: #186 iceweasel

re: #166 Locker

re: #165 Pawn of the Oppressor

Conservapedia was founded in 2007 I think? 2006? and the initial entries were all written by homeschoolers.

The snarkosphere (by which I mean the snarky part of the liberal/progessive/left blogosphere) went crazy with delight. Entries were vandalised: entries about dinosaurs asserting that "jesus rode this one" went unnoticed for weeks. You couldn't tell what entries had been made up and which were real because they were all so awful and hilarious.

Ah, good times.

I hope you're not excusing that conduct. Conservapedia is a fever swamp, I agree, but wiki-vandalism is still bad.

262 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:23:44pm

re: #256 Shiplord Kirel

Jaw drop. That is just depravity, obvious, cynical lying for profit, taking advantage of rubes who don't have any idea just how much experimental verification there is for relativity.

Heh, my first glimpse of that comment showed a different picture.

Visual ... "outside of liberal universities" ... as being a cockroach-infested roadhouse with a decidedly smelly toilet.

263 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:24:00pm

re: #259 rwdflynavy

It seems Locker is being deliberately obtuse.

Well - I'm not going to blame anybody for being deliberately anything. If that's how he sees it, then . . .that's how he sees it. And with the rest of you, I'll just point out that imo, his "take" on it is incorrect.

264 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:24:37pm

re: #259 rwdflynavy

It seems Locker is being deliberately obtuse.

I agree.

265 Cato the Elder  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:25:33pm

"Laborer" is socialisitc?

So the laborer is not worthy of his hire? Because he maybe belongs to a union?

Oh, am I going to have fun with this...

266 Liberal Classic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:26:10pm

re: #252 John Neverbend

Can it get any lower than this?

In the section on relativity, it says, "Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities."

Any of the entries on science, such as astronomy or planet are a laugh riot.

267 Ray in TX  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:26:17pm

re: #242 Walter L. Newton

You evidently know nothing about how ancient texts are translated, and I am not going to give you a translation 101 course on LGF.

Don't waste your time lecturing me in defense of the indefensible. How anyone can read Exodus 21 and still argue that "servant" is the proper translation is beyond my ability to debate.

268 jvic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:26:25pm

Let me get this straight.

The Dominionists want to rewrite the Constitution according to "Biblical principles". And this other set of folks, a set that just might overlap considerably with the Dominionists, want to rewrite the Bible for their political convenience retranslate the Bible.

I'm an agnostic, but IMO that can fairly be called blasphemy.
***
A helpful thought for the translators: be sure to work in "death panel" somewhere.

269 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:28:04pm

It's as good a place as any to post my favorite quote on church-state relations, by the late Richard John Neuhaus:

The problem, of course, is that neither [church nor state] is prepared to remain within its institutional boundaries. Government, if it is to be sustainable, engages beliefs and loyalties of an ultimate sort that can properly be called religious. As the impulse of the modern state is to define all public space as governmental space, so the consequence is a tendency toward "civil religion." Religion, on the other hand, if it represents a comprehensive belief system, speaks to the human condition in all its aspects, including the right ordering (the government) of public life...Thus each institution is, in the eyes of the other, constantly bursting its bounds. Therein is the foundation of the open-ended argument between church and state. Open-ended, that is, so long as a society professes to be democratic.

270 Gus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:32:00pm

Unbelievable, but then again, consider the source: Conservapedia. They might consider naming their version the Wingbat Testament. It will only be accepted by the usual suspects.

Unfortunately, these acts will further taint the conservative brand even further.

271 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:32:12pm

re: #251 rwdflynavy

You miss the point. As a conservative Christian, I believe in caring for the poor and feeding the hungry through my church. We have 10 mission fields that address these needs both in our community and in the world writ large.

Liberals tend to believe this is the purpose of government. The are always very generous with other peoples money. That isn't what the New Testament said. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to help the poor, he told his disciples to do it!

I don't disagree with that but there are things that can be done through government that can't through individual small groups, even though the latter are important for local issues. There is also a place for larger non governmental groups, who can also do more, and do it more efficiently, than your local churches and they are not overtly tied to any particular church.

In this regard you can label me with the liberals, but I do more than donate via taxes as do many others.

I mean no offense, but what rankles me in so many of these conversations is the claim that churches are "gooder" because they help the poor. If helping the poor was the primary objective there would be less money spent on cathedrals and they would all be branches of, say, The Salvation Army, or Goodwill.

I don't think there is a human religion that doesn't have commandments about helping the poor. Muslims, for example, are supposed to donate 5% of their income to that purpose. Whether it is always used that way is besides the point. I suspect even Zeus and Thor had something to say about it.

Christianity has no monopoly on charity.

272 sagehen  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:32:52pm

re: #254 rwdflynavy

No, it was generated in a capitalist society and donated by members of my church. Not received as a tax from the government redistributing wealth. As to your second point, we are in agreement.

Donated by members of the church who get a tax break for their donation. So to some degree, it is the government redistributing the wealth of taxpayers who didn't choose to make such donations.

273 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:33:28pm

re: #251 rwdflynavy

You miss the point. As a conservative Christian, I believe in caring for the poor and feeding the hungry through my church. We have 10 mission fields that address these needs both in our community and in the world writ large.

Liberals tend to believe this is the purpose of government. The are always very generous with other peoples money. That isn't what the New Testament said. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to help the poor, he told his disciples to do it!

Which reminds me of another RJN quote: "Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion."

274 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:36:41pm

re: #273 The Sanity Inspector

Which reminds me of another RJN quote: "Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion."

Which of course has to be responded to with "Bullshit".

275 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:39:24pm

re: #271 Naso Tang

I don't disagree with anything you said. Our churches buildings provide us a place to worship and fellowship. Our main job as Christians is to spread the good word, need a place for seekers to come see what it is all about.

276 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:41:22pm

re: #271 Naso Tang

Christianity has no monopoly on charity.

No, but...

"As before, the genius of India has taken from her aggressors the most spiritually significant principle of their culture and fashioned of it a new message of hope for mankind. There is in Christianity the great doctrine that God became man in order to save humanity by taking the burden of its sin and suffering on Himself, here in this very world, not waiting for the next. That the starving must be fed, the ragged clad, has been emphasized by Christianity as no other religion has done. Charity, benevolence, and the like, no doubt have an important place in the religions of our country as well, but there they are in practice circumscribed within much narrower limits, and are only partially inspired by love of man. And to our great good fortune, Gandhiji was able to receive this teaching of Christ in a living way. It was fortunate that he had not to learn of Christianity through professional experts, but should have found in Tolstoi a teacher who realized the value of non-violence through the multifarious experience of his own life struggles. For it was this great gift from Europe that our country had all along been awaiting."

--The Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore, in A Tagore Reader, sometime in the early 20th Century

277 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:46:11pm

re: #276 The Sanity Inspector

Your point? Sounds like the preachings of a convert. The grass is always greener on their side.

278 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:47:39pm

re: #270 Gus 802

Unbelievable, but then again, consider the source: Conservapedia. They might consider naming their version the Wingbat Testament. It will only be accepted by the usual suspects.

Unfortunately, these acts will further taint the conservative brand even further.

There should be a satirical version of this site. Although, to be honest you could just copy the entire site, rename it 'Wingnutopedia' add a sarc tag and you'd be there.

279 BARACK THE VOTE  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:51:36pm

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

I hope you're not excusing that conduct. Conservapedia is a fever swamp, I agree, but wiki-vandalism is still bad.

In general, yes. Conservapedia? Not so much.

280 Gus  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:54:27pm

re: #278 Jimmah

There should be a satirical version of this site. Although, to be honest you could just copy the entire site, rename it 'Wingnutopedia' add a sarc tag and you'd be there.

Of course, Conservapedia is accidentally satirical already. This has to take the cake though as far as liberal and gender derangement.

281 ckb  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:55:16pm
The interesting thing about this project: it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.

This is not a well understood notion. One of recent Popes, when comparing the foundations of Islam and Christianity, said a primary difference responsible for the violent fundamentalism of Islam was the notion that the Koran is the literal word of god, transcribed by Mohamed, in the original language. Thus the "toilet", "top shelf", "can't put in on the floor" stories and whatnot - it's not just a book.

When looking at the Christian Bible, it was all written by men, colored by non-divine bias and imperfection. None (or very little) of it is attributed to anyone else but men. And even if it was, what we see now is translated by men into whatever language you are reading it in. So, it is indeed a living document that can (and has been) continually redefined as us imperfect humans increase our understanding.

I've found though, that if you ask most Christians/Catholics, that they believe it to be the literal word of god.

I'm agnostic. Just stating some facts about it as it has interested me in the past. Modifying the document to remove "liberal" words seems wacky to me.

282 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:58:45pm

re: #279 iceweasel

In general, yes. Conservapedia? Not so much.

Thought about it, and then agreed. Conservapedia is kind of an act of vandalism itself.

283 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 3:59:27pm

re: #277 Naso Tang

Your point? Sounds like the preachings of a convert. The grass is always greener on their side.

No, Tagore was not a convert. He's actually a quite remarkable man, and should be better known. I believe his observation on charity's greater role within the Christian tradition still stands. Some readers may remember back after the 2004 tsunami, how certain wealthy Muslim countries were criticized for not kicking in more to help the victims. And in the U.S., we had floods in my area recently. As with all other floods that I've had anything to do with--admittedly not very many--church work groups were on the spot, well in advance of government and NGO aid.

284 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:02:19pm

re: #279 iceweasel

In general, yes. Conservapedia? Not so much.

I don't agree, respectfully. Even if people are in great error, to simply vandalize their pages like that is not cool IMO.

285 sattv4u2  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:05:13pm

re: #284 Dark_Falcon

I don't agree, respectfully. Even if people are in great error, to simply vandalize their pages like that is not cool IMO.

Childish, actually

Akin to penciling in the mustache, beard and goggles on a picture of the teacher you abhor

286 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:06:34pm

re: #283 The Sanity Inspector

I can accept that the commandments may be clearer in some than others, but then I also tend to think people help people with or without commandments.

287 jvic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:09:42pm

re: #279 iceweasel

re: #261 Dark_Falcon

I hope you're not excusing that conduct. Conservapedia is a fever swamp, I agree, but wiki-vandalism is still bad.

In general, yes. Conservapedia? Not so much.

Ice, I have to agree with DF in principle. In actuality, I think your story is hilarious.

Vandalism is a serious matter. Pranks are an annoyance for which the cure is worse than the disease.

288 walkman  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:13:21pm

re: #103 Charles

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I'm not looking to get banned as I just joined Sunday. But Charles, you say that you get perfectly good money to advertise for Glenn Beck on your site. I applaud that. It's about making money. So why would you ban someone for visiting/posting on another site when that simply reduces your audience and statistics to support advertising? Again, being new I not up on all the rules/philosophy.

289 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:14:34pm

re: #288 walkman

Because unlike some places, this place is not just about statistics.

290 Kytan  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:14:43pm

Islam is onto something with the whole "keep our holy text holy by NOT CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD ON A WHIM" thing.

291 walkman  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:15:09pm

re: #289 Naso Tang

Because unlike some places, this place is not just about statistics.

You miss my point.

292 Achilles Tang  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:17:07pm

re: #291 walkman

You miss my point.

I don't think so, you miss mine.

293 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:19:05pm

re: #288 walkman

I'm not looking to get banned as I just joined Sunday. But Charles, you say that you get perfectly good money to advertise for Glenn Beck on your site. I applaud that. It's about making money. So why would you ban someone for visiting/posting on another site when that simply reduces your audience and statistics to support advertising? Again, being new I not up on all the rules/philosophy.

Because many people who join such sites do so to bash Charles. Charles dislikes such two-faced conduct.

294 walkman  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:22:27pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Because many people who join such sites do so to bash Charles. Charles dislikes such two-faced conduct.

Fair enough.

295 walkman  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:28:29pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Just to be clear, the banned party was dissing Charles on this other site?

296 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:41:23pm

re: #286 Naso Tang

I can accept that the commandments may be clearer in some than others, but then I also tend to think people help people with or without commandments.

There certainly are a merciful plenty of those sainted individuals. But, all religions are not alike, neither in rituals, beliefs, or attitudes. Remember those church people a few years ago, who went around the Middle East apologizing for the Crusades? I've never heard of any similar group of Muslim clerics apologizing for The Jihad, nor do I expect to, given the Koranic injunctions requiring war against unbelievers.

297 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:44:06pm

re: #295 walkman

Just to be clear, the banned party was dissing Charles on this other site?

From what I've learned Charles only has two requests for lizards. Don't post on the stalker site and don't bad mouth him or LGF on other sites.

Seems pretty simple to me!

298 walkman  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:45:44pm

re: #297 rwdflynavy

From what I've learned Charles only has two requests for lizards. Don't post on the stalker site and don't bad mouth him or LGF on other sites.

Seems pretty simple to me!

Good safety tip. Is there a stalker site list?

299 The Sanity Inspector  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:46:36pm

re: #287 jvic

Ice, I have to agree with DF in principle. In actuality, I think your story is hilarious.

Vandalism is a serious matter. Pranks are an annoyance for which the cure is worse than the disease.

Agreed. Vandalism of any website, for any reason, is just low-class. Unless you're the National Security Agency reeling in some jihadists.

300 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:47:25pm

re: #298 walkman

Good safety tip. Is there a stalker site list?

No list, just one stalker site started by a banned lizard. Not going to link for obvious reasons. It is obvious if you look for it.

301 sagehen  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:58:42pm

re: #290 Kytan

Islam is onto something with the whole "keep our holy text holy by NOT CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD ON A WHIM" thing.


Jews don't change anything about our text either... but scriptural study doesn't stop at reading the original holy bits. We have entire libraries of commentary, analysis, interpretation, critiques and rebuttals to the commentary and analysis. The debates go on for centuries, and nobody's allowed to claim they have the definitive take.

302 jvic  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:11:14pm

re: #299 The Sanity Inspector

re: #287 jvic

Ice, I have to agree with DF in principle. In actuality, I think your story is hilarious.

Vandalism is a serious matter. Pranks are an annoyance for which the cure is worse than the disease.

Agreed. Vandalism of any website, for any reason, is just low-class. Unless you're the National Security Agency reeling in some jihadists.

In this particular case, I wish there were an emoticon for trying to maintain an austere expression while desperately stifling a belly laugh.

Obviously the distinction between a prank and vandalism is not always clear. Reasonable people can disagree. Vandalism should be forbidden and punished; pranks should be discouraged and reproved. How?--Again, there is a grey area in the boundary between a civil society and a police state (or an anarchy, for that matter).

303 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:21:33pm

re: #164 medaura18586

rejects logical and biblical standards... are they equating the two? If so, they either don't understand the Bible or they don't understand logic... most likely both.

Obviously both. If they understood the Bible, they would have an aversion to lying.

304 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:22:54pm

re: #218 marjoriemoon

Yep. I would also add that one needs to kill to eat. One can kill in self-defense and one kills during war. None of these things are considered a sin. Murder is malicious intent.

Be careful with that. When a soldier shoots, he clearly had a premeditated and malicious intent towards the enemy.

Murder is premeditated unlawful killing.

305 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:46:30pm

re: #268 jvic

Let me get this straight.

The Dominionists want to rewrite the Constitution according to "Biblical principles". And this other set of folks, a set that just might overlap considerably with the Dominionists, want to rewrite the Bible for their political convenience retranslate the Bible.

I'm an agnostic, but IMO that can fairly be called blasphemy.
***
A helpful thought for the translators: be sure to work in "death panel" somewhere.

I think basically, they figure that James Madison and Jesus agreed with one another about all important things, and that those beliefs exactly correspond to their own. Unfortunately, their writings do not perfectly reflect this, due to liberal domination of the schools of scribes during the reign of Josiah, and union thugs interfering with early printings of the Constitution. Once everything's been redacted back to its original intent--which can be plainly determined by the contributors at Wikipedia consulting their own social and political beliefs--we'll be good to go.

306 Irenicum  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:53:06pm

re: #250 The Sanity Inspector

With a name like Schlafly, it's got to be bad.

307 hokiepride  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:21:47pm

What annoys me about socons like Phyllis Schlafly is that they don't believe that women should be protected against work-based discrimination, they want women to stay at home, but if Schlafly believes that why is she still penning columns and making money? Conservapedia, of course is trash. here is someone pointing some pretty nasty racist stuff from there

[Link: www.jackandjillpolitics.com...]

308 armylaw  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:29:35pm

re: #251 rwdflynavy

You miss the point. As a conservative Christian, I believe in caring for the poor and feeding the hungry through my church. We have 10 mission fields that address these needs both in our community and in the world writ large.

Liberals tend to believe this is the purpose of government. The are always very generous with other peoples money. That isn't what the New Testament said. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to help the poor, he told his disciples to do it!

As a Christian - why do non-Christians get away without any social justice responsibilities? Jews and Bhuddists and Hindus and atheists have a responsibility to care for the less fortunate too. That is not a Christian distinctive.

The only entity in town that sweeps up everyone who has a responsibility to care for the less fortunate is, unfortunately, the Government.

309 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:37:03pm

They have it WRONG!

Anyone who's anyone KNOWS that the TRUE BIBLE TRANSLATION is in LOLcat.

Example:

John 3:16

"So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, k?"

I mean come on, how can you argue with Teh Ceiling Kitteh?

310 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:20:22pm

re: #309 eclectic infidel

Oops. I am teh stoopid. It pays to read the thread first. Anyway, the LOLcat Bible is apparently finished and ready for publication. What a hoot.

311 mikhailtheplumber  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:29:31pm

Applying modern criteria like "liberal" and "conservative" to parts of the Bible is just so stupid my stupid-o-meter broke.
Then again, supposed conservatives like Shlafly do not surprise me anymore. Have you ever seen how he "wins" his arguments in the conservapedia discussion pages? He's a sad, sad, man.

312 mikhailtheplumber  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:53:33pm

re: #147 Charles

I wonder if the Conservative Bible Project plans to do anything about the Bible's universal support for slavery?

Mr. Johnson, they'll probably ask Robert Stacy McCain to write that part, justifying Secession through biblical exegesis.

/

313 cenotaphium  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:59:36pm

re: #309 eclectic infidel

They have it WRONG!

Anyone who's anyone KNOWS that the TRUE BIBLE TRANSLATION is in LOLcat.

How dare you question The Brick Testament?! Heathen!

314 Ian MacGregor  Mon, Oct 5, 2009 11:22:08pm

re: #147 Charles

The bible certainly does not condemn the practice of slavery. It does condemn the mistreatment of slaves, instructs that runaway slaves should be given refuge, and while definitely against revolts by slaves, encourages them to become free if they can. I would not say it universally supports slavery.

However, the abolitionist movement was a religious one. Men wondered how fellow men who were equal before God, could be slaves of other men. These Christian men persevered in their attempts to convince the British government that men who were equal before God cannot be slaves of other men. Once this was done, the Royal Navy stopped the slave trade at sea, and the Royal Marines raided slave markets.

Would this have happened without the religious push? In the fullness of time, yes. During this period where there those using scripture to defend slavery? Yes. But thank God the abolitionist stance won out. You might have had economic reasons to end slavery, but the abolitionists gave a moral reason to end it based on scripture. It is difficult to assert the universal support of slavery by scripture given how it met its demise. Yes I know there are still places where slavery is practiced)

315 Nemesis6  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 3:18:21am

[Link: rationalwiki.com...]

Rational Wiki covers the crazyness at Conservapedia excellently. Conservapedia is down right now so the links to the crazy quotes won't work.

Meanwhile, check out this page here, which contains proof (as showcased in Conservapedia's Obama article)
[Link: rationalwiki.com...]

316 deacon  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 4:02:50am

How dare they remove verses that are not in the the original manuscripts...

317 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 7:25:01am

Even though I'm a right wing Conservative, I find the idea of a "conservative" Bible to be pretty ridiculous. Mind you, I'm not one of those Christians who believe the Bible is the unaltered word of God, it's gone through too many human hands for that. Nevertheless I do find passages in the Bible to be very inspiring, especially the 4 Gospels on the life of Jesus. But altering the Bible for political purposes seems against the spirit of the Scriptures. Disrespectful, to say the least, as well as very silly and pointless.

318 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 7:31:04am

re: #271 Naso Tang

I disagree. From my experience, government can't come close to the efficiency of churches when it comes to helping the poor. Government has paid employees doing it, while churches usually have unpaid volunteers. Government has a far greater bureaucracy to support. Indeed, other national defence, I don't see anything government can do as efficently that anybody else could.

319 gadlaw  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 8:50:31am

re: #3 Mad Al-Jaffee

Thanks for the Lolcat Bible link - don't know how I missed this one.

320 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 9:15:32am

re: #314 Ian MacGregor

The bible certainly does not condemn the practice of slavery. It does condemn the mistreatment of slaves, instructs that runaway slaves should be given refuge, and while definitely against revolts by slaves, encourages them to become free if they can. I would not say it universally supports slavery.

However, the abolitionist movement was a religious one. Men wondered how fellow men who were equal before God, could be slaves of other men. These Christian men persevered in their attempts to convince the British government that men who were equal before God cannot be slaves of other men. Once this was done, the Royal Navy stopped the slave trade at sea, and the Royal Marines raided slave markets.

Would this have happened without the religious push? In the fullness of time, yes. During this period where there those using scripture to defend slavery? Yes. But thank God the abolitionist stance won out. You might have had economic reasons to end slavery, but the abolitionists gave a moral reason to end it based on scripture. It is difficult to assert the universal support of slavery by scripture given how it met its demise. Yes I know there are still places where slavery is practiced)

And the institution of slavery was most strongly defended -- to the point of secession -- in the extremely religious Confederacy. The fact is that there is much more justification for slavery in the Bible than there is justification for abolition.

321 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 10:04:54am

re: #320 Charles

And the institution of slavery was most strongly defended -- to the point of secession -- in the extremely religious Confederacy. The fact is that there is much more justification for slavery in the Bible than there is justification for abolition.

The Biblical justifications for slavery come not only through the codification of the practice in the Old Testament, but most importantly, through the moral code and fables put forth in Scripture:

Adam shall rule over Eve -- by God's decree, thus setting the first precedent for men not being equal to each other. Then the angel informs Rebekah that her son Jacob is to rule over his twin brother Esau,.. par God's will. The Bible is full to the brim with such examples of God directly ordaining that people be unequal to one-another.

The utilitarian reading of the Bible (...Men wondered how fellow men who were equal before God, could be slaves of other men...) is very much wrong-headed in so far as it tries to extract a moral basis for abolitionism from Scripture itself. What probably prompted these people to question the morality of slavery was the revolution in thought and philosophy from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. The theistic element was superfluous to and in fact contradicted their ethics agenda.

322 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 10:31:38am

re: #320 Charles

re: #321 medaura18586

The slavery issue is one of mistranslation.

The word ehved means servant. Christian translators renamed that to slave.

In the biblical system, they were more or less indentured servants.

None of them were servants for life - unless they chose to be after certain conditions were met. All would be set free after a maximum of seven years service.

The way that one became an indentured servant was usually because one could not pay debts. The "master" would pay off the debts of the servant and then the servant would work off the debt.

The system was not perfect. It certainly had room for abuse. However, it was absolutely nothing like the system in the American South. It is one of the more repugnant uses of scripture that those verses were used the way they were by other very evil people to justify an abomination.

As to women. In the 3500 history of the Jewish people, there statistically must have been a meek, retiring, blushing wall flower of a Jewish woman. However, I have never met such a lady, nor has anyone I know, nor have we heard of one.

There are very strong cultural reasons for this.

The Jewish woman could always read, write, own property, have rights over her body, refuse marriage, and run a business.

The ideal of a Jewish woman has always been strong and educated.

Hashem himself tells Abraham to listen to Sarah - not just in one instance, but "in all that she says."

Devorah was a judge.

323 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 10:40:37am

re: #322 LudwigVanQuixote

The indentured servants would all be set free after seven years. That's what the "Bell of Liberty" was all about--debts being eventually forgiven. But, this sparing treatment only applied to the Jewish, or domestic servants/slaves. Foreign slaves captured in battles were slaves for life, not owing to any debts of their own.

While it may be argued that the ideal Jewish women were strong and educated, it's also undeniable that the society of the Old Testament is profoundly patriarchal. Womanfolk is subjugated from the Garden of Eden and onward; polygyny was the norm while polyandry was unknown, etc.

324 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:01:18am

And then we have the verses that allow selling your own daughter as a sex slave:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

325 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:24:04am

re: #323 medaura18586

Not so, Ehved Cannani, who are captured enemy soldiers, are released after the jubilee.

326 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:42:14am

re: #324 Charles

And then we have the verses that allow selling your own daughter as a sex slave:

Charles you are just wrong.

First off, I can't even go into all the issues about how this is bizarre, but, absolutely positively there is NO selling your daughter to be a sex slave!

In fact, this has it's very own commandment:

Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot, lest the land become lewd and the land filled with depravity.

This is in Parsh Kedoshim 19:29. Christian bibles are edited differently than the original and have different numberings. If you have a King James this would be somewhere in the middle of LEviticus near the commandments on fruit trees.

Now as to the main body of that text, Again there are things that Christians did with the text that are a little off.

Let me correct this...

When a Jewish man contracts his daughter as a maidservant to another Jewish man, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are (because it is assumed that the master of the house married her if she does not leave his house).

Further, he is explicitly forbidden to have sex with her unless he marries her.

They were not allowed to have sex with captured gentile women either, unless they convert to Judaism and they marry them. In fact, if you were to violate them, they must be set free - and then damages would be paid, or you would have to marry them - and not be able to divorce them.

327 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:43:44am

Leviticus 25:44-46

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

328 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:44:38am

re: #327 medaura18586

Leviticus 25:44-46

Bad bad translation. What version are you using?

329 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:52:18am

re: #327 medaura18586

Do you remember how I said you should get a Tanach and look into that?

Please do. You will be very astonished at the many many differences between that and king James.

You also have to remember that just reading King James, and trying to reconstruct what the ancient Jewish laws were, is reading in a vacuum without the oral tradition that comes to explain those laws.

330 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:52:44am

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

I have gotten my fill from this book, The Bible from Cover to Cover, written by a Biblical scholar sensitive to issues of translation. I don't doubt that there may be legitimate divergences of interpretation, but I can't conceive how badly the meaning can be botched from mere mistranslation as to undo the gist of those verses.

As for the seeming contradiction between Parsh Kedoshim 19:29 and Exodus 21:7-11 -- that the two seem contradictory in meaning does not necessarily mean that one is more authentic than the other. Scripture is full of contradictions, most arising from alleged multiple authorship. For example, there are two very different stories of creation presented in Genesis. The Parsh Kedoshim verse in my view doesn't even undo the Exodus one. The first advises not to sell one's own daughters as harlots. The second codifies the practice if you choose to do so. It sounds as if it's still within one's prerogative.

331 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:56:02am

re: #329 LudwigVanQuixote

I will consult a Tanach soon when I have some more time to devote to Biblical scholarship, into which I tend to immerse myself once every year or so. And I expect to gain authentic nuance into the reading of the Torah. But frankly, I doubt that the translation of the King James Old Testament will be turned on its head as a result. Though who knows, I may be surprised.

332 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 11:58:16am

re: #330 medaura18586

I have gotten my fill from this book, The Bible from Cover to Cover, written by a Biblical scholar sensitive to issues of translation. I don't doubt that there may be legitimate divergences of interpretation, but I can't conceive how badly the meaning can be botched from mere mistranslation as to undo the gist of those verses.

As for the seeming contradiction between Parsh Kedoshim 19:29 and Exodus 21:7-11 -- that the two seem contradictory in meaning does not necessarily mean that one is more authentic than the other. Scripture is full of contradictions, most arising from alleged multiple authorship. For example, there are two very different stories of creation presented in Genesis. The Parsh Kedoshim verse in my view doesn't even undo the Exodus one. The first advises not to sell one's own daughters as harlots. The second codifies the practice if you choose to do so. It sounds as if it's still within one's prerogative.

Actually I don't want to perpetuate a typo...

It's Parsha Kedoshim.

Now that said, I do not know the book you are referring to. However, I do know that any discussion of "what the law really means" or "what the verses really say" in the context of the ancient Jews is meaningless without the Talmud and the original text.

Further, believe it or don't there are entire tracates of Talmud dedicated exactly to these issues.

No the fact is that it is explicitly forbidden to boink your maidservant unless you marry her.

333 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 12:02:20pm

re: #321 medaura18586

You might want to read up on the lives of William Wilbeforce who became an evangelical Christian shortly before taking up the abolitionist cause, or Thomas Clarkson who was driven by a revelation from God, Granville Sharp. a biblical scholar, Hannah more and her trust in God, and Charles Middleton who was heavily influenced by a religious pamphleteer and seeing the slave trade. Also don't forget Bielby Porteus, the Bishop of London.

These men were moved by their religious convictions, not so much by the Enlightenment.

In the U.S. the story is different. William Lloyd Garrison has to battle against the prevailing religious thought that slavery was fine. It would be hard to argue e was driven by religious conviction. John Whittier however was. Harriet Beecher Stowe was the daughter of a minister.

On the whole more members were driven by religious conviction than enlightenment thought. God's word does not change, but our interpretation of it does. The religious apologist for slavery lost out to the religious apologists for emancipation. Religion does change overtime, that is it evolves.

334 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 12:06:14pm

re: #331 medaura18586

I will consult a Tanach soon when I have some more time to devote to Biblical scholarship, into which I tend to immerse myself once every year or so. And I expect to gain authentic nuance into the reading of the Torah. But frankly, I doubt that the translation of the King James Old Testament will be turned on its head as a result. Though who knows, I may be surprised.

Try the very first words:

Bereshith bara Elokim...

When God (in plural form!) began to create...

vs.

In the beginning God created.


Hmm one has the universe as an ongoing project with man as a partner in creation.

The other has it as a done deal, where man has no purpose in this life other than accepting grace.

My point is not that King James et all were completely mistranslated per se, but rather that they were carefully translated in the absence of the oral tradition to conform to the doctrines of the translators.

335 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 12:11:24pm

re: #333 Ian MacGregor

You might want to read up on the lives of William Wilbeforce who became an evangelical Christian shortly before taking up the abolitionist cause, or Thomas Clarkson who was driven by a revelation from God, Granville Sharp. a biblical scholar, Hannah more and her trust in God, and Charles Middleton who was heavily influenced by a religious pamphleteer and seeing the slave trade. Also don't forget Bielby Porteus, the Bishop of London.

These men were moved by their religious convictions, not so much by the Enlightenment.

Yet it's interesting that all the people you name lived in the 1700s-1800s. What do you think drives the evolution of the interpretation of religion through the ages? Why weren't Christians quoting their Scripture against slavery at any time before? The Renaissance started imparting secular humanist values in the religious mainstream, but most of the Renaissance figures were Christian nonetheless. The prevalence of Christianity has been invariant in Europe since the fall of Rome. But all positive variations were the result of secular humanist philosophy -- the Renaissance in the late 1400s and the Enlightenment in the 1700s. Religion was the rationalization, of course. But humanist philosophy was the real driving cause for emancipation.

336 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 12:16:19pm

re: #335 medaura18586

Yet it's interesting that all the people you name lived in the 1700s-1800s. What do you think drives the evolution of the interpretation of religion through the ages? Why weren't Christians quoting their Scripture against slavery at any time before? The Renaissance started imparting secular humanist values in the religious mainstream, but most of the Renaissance figures were Christian nonetheless. The prevalence of Christianity has been invariant in Europe since the fall of Rome. But all positive variations were the result of secular humanist philosophy -- the Renaissance in the late 1400s and the Enlightenment in the 1700s. Religion was the rationalization, of course. But humanist philosophy was the real driving cause for emancipation.

And that humanism has always gotten a giant boost from believing that everyone else was equally loved by the same loving creator.

337 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 1:04:30pm

re: #336 LudwigVanQuixote

There were anti-slavery Christian writings before the enlightenment including papal missals. Pius II in 1462 labeled it a great crime, 1537 Paul III proscribed enslavement of Indians, Urban VIII did the same thing in 1639 and Benedict XIV in 1741 ...

Also slaves worshipped with freemen even in the earliest of Christian churches, and some slaves became popes. So while not condemning in the world, it did "suspend" it during worship.

338 medaura18586  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 1:34:47pm

re: #337 Ian MacGregor

Before the Enlightenment but not before the Renaissance.

339 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 3:56:29pm

Who were the great philosophers of the Renaissance speaking out against slavery?
Also judges in the antebellum American South were known to defend slavery based on humanist grounds.

The kindest thing we can do for these people is to keep them slaves as they would suffer horribly should they be free. That sentiment comes out of secularism. In the OT if one was offered freedom and refused it, and awl was driven into his ears or perhaps one ear, but given either choice or freedom, the law favored freedom.

The Greeks, who really started the humanist movement were anything but antislavery.

The council of Westminster outlawed slavery and serfdom in London in 1102. But I don't know if they did so for religious reasons or otherwise.

For the most part Europeans had stopped enslaving other Europeans before the Renaissance. I am not completely sure about this. The citing of writings of various Popes came when non-Europeans were being subjected to slavery. To many of faith and also to a humanist slavery of men like them by other men was abhorrent, but not slavery of men who looked different. What group was responsible for getting the world to see that all men were created equal. It was the primarily the religious types who believed in a creator, and not primarily the humanists.

340 deacon  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 4:15:38pm

re: #339 Ian MacGregor

Who were the great philosophers of the Renaissance speaking out against slavery?

Some did speak out against it, such as Voltaire, but he still considered Africans as a lower species and deserving to be slaves, and Montesquieu who was also against slavery, but justified it for economic reasons.

341 deacon  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 4:18:05pm

re: #340 deacon


Sorry, those are enlightenment philosophers.

342 aengus  Tue, Oct 6, 2009 5:03:29pm

"It’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes."

A supposed 'admission' by the ignoramuses at Conservapedia doesn't count. Christianity is strictly politically neutral.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 93 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0