|
Post by Mr. Turquoise on Oct 5, 2009 15:32:15 GMT -5
I might do it. I'd want a picture of a Bible verse, though, not a picture of a Bible. Any suggestions on which one? Hmmm...I would have thought it might work better with a picture of some fundie douchebag doing something nasty while holding a sign quoting a Bible verse. However, Exodus 7:3-5 actually describes Yahweh "hardening Pharoah's heart" so that he'll refuse to listen to Moses, thereby giving Yahweh an excuse to royally fuck the Egyptians. Fits pretty well methinks. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I don't have time today to sift through the Book. Mr. Turquoise
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Oct 5, 2009 16:09:33 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is. Literally everyone does this, the conservatards are just being alot more blatant about it. if your a socialist the bible endorses socialism, if your a capitalist it endorses the free-market, if you hate gays it hates gays, if your gay its just been 'misinterpreted' for 2000 years straight *pun*, if your a racist God commands his people remain pure, if your not racist god is colorblind, If your a pacifist it denounces all violence, if your a warmonger it only bans murder.
I've never met a religious person who gave half a shit what their holy book said, they just say it agrees with them on everything and claim anything otherwise is 'misinterpreted' or 'doesn't apply to us' when its pointed ou.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 5, 2009 16:21:58 GMT -5
I might do it. I'd want a picture of a Bible verse, though, not a picture of a Bible. Any suggestions on which one? Hmmm...I would have thought it might work better with a picture of some fundie douchebag doing something nasty while holding a sign quoting a Bible verse. However, Exodus 7:3-5 actually describes Yahweh "hardening Pharoah's heart" so that he'll refuse to listen to Moses, thereby giving Yahweh an excuse to royally fuck the Egyptians. Fits pretty well methinks. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I don't have time today to sift through the Book. Mr. Turquoise That would work too.
|
|
ottery
New Member
Otterly delicious
Posts: 23
|
Post by ottery on Oct 5, 2009 16:41:40 GMT -5
I've read about this on right wing watch, and they even posted an example of what they have done so far:
Chapter 3, verses 1-6 from the Book of Mark (New International Version)
and now, the conservapedia version:
Why the heck did they replace "Pharisees" with "intellectuals"?
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Oct 5, 2009 16:43:44 GMT -5
They chaged it to "intellectuals" to promote their secular political views and make them Biblicaly justifiable.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Oct 5, 2009 16:45:58 GMT -5
Totally, Wackadoodle. The Bible, like any religious text, is as much a Rorschach test as a set of rules, stories and all such. People see in it what they want.
These bollockses, though, are a different story. Other (relatively modern) translations, pretty much, were aiming for accuracy or at best, neutrality. This is a specific attempt to rewrite the text toward a single political agenda, which hasn't happened in the modern era (no matter what these guys think). The ambiguity that's there is too much for them. They need it locked down, so the leaders need no answers, and the peons have no questions. This is not for this generation. Assfly is going for the next, and the next, and the next.
|
|
|
Post by catanon on Oct 5, 2009 17:10:04 GMT -5
Cjopaze dammit! I don't think my faith in humanity can take much more of this shit.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Oct 5, 2009 17:14:14 GMT -5
I've never met a religious person who gave half a shit what their holy book said, they just say it agrees with them on everything and claim anything otherwise is 'misinterpreted' or 'doesn't apply to us' when its pointed ou. Is this why a lot of us ex-Christians deconverted after actually reading the Bible in detail from cover-to-cover?
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Oct 5, 2009 17:19:46 GMT -5
I've never met a religious person who gave half a shit what their holy book said, they just say it agrees with them on everything and claim anything otherwise is 'misinterpreted' or 'doesn't apply to us' when its pointed ou. Is this why a lot of us ex-Christians deconverted after actually reading the Bible in detail from cover-to-cover? I didn't get quite that far before I deconverted, but...yes!!
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Oct 5, 2009 17:48:14 GMT -5
I didn't get quite that far before I deconverted, but...yes!! I didn't get that far either... it was so boring that I could barely get past Exodus. Maybe I just don't have the knack for finding spiritual meaning in endless pages of ancient Hebrew geneology records.
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Oct 5, 2009 17:56:11 GMT -5
I think it is scary that these conservatards think that even THE BIBLE is "too liberal" for them. So they're going to make their own version of the bible, and will probably push it as the TRUE word of gawd.
How far to the right do you have to be to see Christianity as "too liberal"? When you're that far to the right, of course everything else is going to be "Liberal".
Yeah, forget about all of that shit about "peace and love" and "help those less fortunate than you" or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a need than it is for a rich man to enter heaven". That is all a bunch of pinko liberal commie socialist hoopla. The True Word™ of the Hellfire and Brimstone Republican GAWD says that the ends always justify the means and you must bomb those brown people and others who aren't your flavor of Christianity because The Word™ says that they's bad and deserve eternal torment.
That whole part about bathing the lepers and dressing their wounds can just take a flying leap off a high cliff because The Word™ says that they deserve to die because leprosy is a "pre-existing condition" and they are not eligible for health insurance despite them paying outrageous premiums for years and years. They can just die in a gutter for all gawd cares. They were probably a buch of dirty hippy commie pinko liberals anyway, so they're burning in hell now. If they had money, they could have paid for their care, but since they're not rich and/or white they they can just die and go to hell.
I'm sorry that I launched into that ramble like that. But really, this is nuts!
If there really is a God out there, if you really do exist, and if you really have the powers that are claimed of you. Then you'll either keep these morons from either A: breeding, and/or B: getting into positions of power and influence. Then again, if the GOP version of God is the true version, then this will be something that he'd like, and the rest of us will be absolutely fucked.
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Oct 5, 2009 18:07:58 GMT -5
Is this why a lot of us ex-Christians deconverted after actually reading the Bible in detail from cover-to-cover? I didn't even get past Genesis to become disillusioned with my religion. Coincidentally, that happened at the same time as I was coming to terms with my sexuality. There might be a connection, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Oct 5, 2009 18:12:35 GMT -5
At least we can say this isn't technically the first time this has happened. Whole books were deleted from the Bible proper back when it got assembled into what it is now.
What do you reckon would happen if they were added back in? I'd pay to see the reaction to that.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 5, 2009 18:41:54 GMT -5
I might do it. I'd want a picture of a Bible verse, though, not a picture of a Bible. Any suggestions on which one? I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I don't have time today to sift through the Book. Mr. Turquoise There is only one Bible verse to go with the project of DELIBERATELY reinterpreting the Bible to support your own pre existing biases. Ladies and gentlemen, Revelation 22:18-19
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 5, 2009 19:31:03 GMT -5
Lol! I forget where, but I'm pretty sure I've seen this mentioned before. This is right up Schlafly's lane, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Speaking of Conservapedia, I'm not sure why that website even exists. Excluding some of the articles involving politics/religion, it's exactly the same thing as Wikipedia, except with bad grammar and lack of information (and truth, in some cases). "Wikipedia is biased and rejected my edits on the evolution article! I'm going to go make an even more biased encyclopedia! Wah wah wah!". Biased my ass. There's over 3 million articles on Wikipedia; there's no way that you looked at every single one of them. To be fair, at least one Conservapedia user has told me that they're aware of their bias, & that they basically exist to "present the other side." That doesn't answer why they blatantly ignore their bias, project people they disagree with as completely negative, & have an entire fucking article picking apart the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia, but hey, you can't win 'em all.
|
|