The Conservative Bible

[Elayne]

Conservative Bible Project
From Conservapedia

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

    * lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
    * lack of precision in modern language
    * translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:

       1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
       2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
       3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
       4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
       5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
       6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
       7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
       8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
       9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
      10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

Benefits include:

    * mastery of the Bible, which is priceless
    * mastery of the English language, which is valuable
    * thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version
    * benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses
    * liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the New Testament. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project.

    * 1 Possible Approaches
    * 2 Building on the King James Version
    * 3 First Example - Liberal Falsehood
    * 4 Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd
    * 5 Third Example - Socialism
    * 6 Advantages to a Conservative Bible Online
    * 7 References
    * 8 See also

Possible Approaches

Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:

    * identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes
    * identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as "gambling", and identify where they should be used
    * identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
    * identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as "truth"

An existing translation might license its version for improvement by the above approaches, much as several modern translations today are built on prior translations. Alternatively, a more ambitious approach would be to start anew from the best available ancient transcripts.

In stage one, the translation could focus on word improvement and thereby be described as a "conservative word-for-word" translation. If greater freedom in interpretation is then desired, then a "conservative thought-for-thought" version could be generated as a second stage.
Building on the King James Version

In the United States and much of the world, the immensely popular and respected King James Version (KJV) is freely available and in the public domain. It could be used as the baseline for developing a conservative translation without requiring a license or any fees. Where the KJV is known to be deficient due to discovery of more authentic sources, exceptions can be made that use either more modern public domain translations as a baseline, or by using the original Greek or Hebrew.

There are 66 books in the KJV, comprised of 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses, and 788,280 words.[6] The project could begin with translation of the New Testament, which is only 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,957 verses, and less than 200,000 words.

Retranslation at rate of 20 verses a day would complete the entire New Testament in about a year. With 5 good retranslators, that would be an average of only 4 verses a day per translator. At a faster rate of 20 verses per day by 5 good translators, the entire New Testament could be retranslated in less than 3 months.

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

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

    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.

Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

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.
Advantages to a Conservative Bible Online

There are several striking advantages to a conservative approach to translating the Bible online:

    * participants learn enormously from the process
    * liberal bias - and lack of authenticity - become easier to recognize and address
    * by translating online, this utilizes the growing online resources that improve accuracy
    * supported by conservative principles, the project can be bolder in uprooting and excluding liberal distortions
    * the project can adapt quickly to future threats from liberals to biblical integrity
    * access is free and immediate to the growing internet audience, for their benefit
    * the ensuing debate would flesh out -- and stop -- the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals
    * this would bring the Bible to a new audience of political types, for their benefit; Bible courses in college Politics Departments would be welcome
    * this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Basically, in this project, the Conservatives argue that the current Bible is too liberal and that they plan on rewriting the Bible to remove pro-Liberal bias from the Bible.

Specifically, they say they are going to remove the quote from Jesus, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."

They also say they are going to remove socialist parables by Jesus and replace them with free market parables, so as to prove that Jesus was not a socialist but rather a capitalist.

No, I'm not kidding.  They even have a draft version of the Bible up.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible

[Vekseid]

I can only imagine that some variants of Gnostic Christianity would send them into an apoplectic fit.

[Elayne]

After all these years, one could assume the Bible has held up pretty well, but a group of conservatives in the United States thinks it needs a rewrite.

The folks behind Conservapedia, a right-leaning version of Wikipedia, have launched the Conservative Bible Project, aimed at getting rid of what they call liberal bias, wordiness, emasculation and a general dumbing down of the Old and New Testaments.

A dozen or so users, led by Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly – the son of conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly – are tackling the 27 books of the New Testament and 39 books of the Old Testament. Anyone can offer suggested changes.

Mr. Schlafly is a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer and home-school teacher in New Jersey who began Conservapedia in 2006 because he felt Wikipedia was too liberal and anti-Christian. He believes the project will restore the Bible to its original intent.

“The trouble is, new translations of the Bible are done by professors at liberal universities who overwhelmingly voted for Obama,” Mr. Schlafly said. “Their political bias seeps into their translations and we felt it necessary to counteract that with one that uproots and eradicates any liberal bias.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/group-of-us-conservatives-rewrite-the-bible/article1319247/

[The Overlord]

Twenty different ways I could rant on this article, starting with these Marlboro-smoking short-dicks that are afraid to have any of the equality that ‘emasculation’ is bringing about.


Bottom line here, it’s not at all about venerating god properly, it’s all about creating god (and god’s word) in your own line of thinking, and as it was explained to me a good 25 years ago, the canon of the bible is closed. Nothing can be added to it or taken away. That's exactly what they're trying to do here.

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

      10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise

Hmm, too many big long words for you? Smells like oxymoron to me.  >:)

[Cythieus]

I will just quote this:

"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, and if anyone takes away from them, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

In short, go on and do it. I don't fee sympathy for them.

[HairyHeretic]

Why does it not surprise me that Conservapedia has a hand in this?

[Vekseid]

I could list any number of reasons. Their traffic was falling, though, so I imagine they wanted to drum up something nice and outrageous.

Too little, too late, I think.

[Kate]

Oh religion.

Christain's as a whole mean well, I do believe they generally do want peace and "souls saved",
and perhaps some miracles did happen, strange things do in this world.

What I DONT understand is they already know that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were at best followers of Jesus - writing what they recall he did etc 20 years after his death.

Even with an intention to be as accurate as possible, their recall will change due to their perspective of interpretation, what they write will change due to their intention.

If christianity believed the views of JC were effectively that of god ... the dead sea scrolls (reputably written by JC himself without others putting their lean on it) is probably a safer bet.

Proving it was JC that wrote them, not so easy, proving that "JC's" understanding of the language and the views of god for the contexts he is writing in, not so easy, proving that JC's approach suit others ... not so easy.... unless you don't look for that and have faith in it being right in the first place.

As historical documents the bibles is useful .... perspective of God expressed ?
God that I though JC himself mentioned was not understandable by the mind of man let alone
capture-able by the languages of mankind... Logically ? No.

Faith ?

Hmm ... faith is a super placebo, the power of belief I think is real,
in a word faith is confidence in life for whatever you are thinking ...
which I do beleive in.

[Lilias]

Let's say I'm happy to be Greek. So I can read my NT in the original (and the OT in the Septuagint translation, which predates agendas).

[Kip]

Well because I'm obviously liberally biased, much of what I would say in response could be dismissed.

The blaring fault in their logic that jumped out at me is -

It's alright to impose conservative bias onto the bible but not liberal bias?  How very.... biased.

[Jude]

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity

diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity

intellectual force and logic of Christianity

Hahahahahahahaha.

[Nacht]

One of my best friends has his opinions on this matter as well, and personally, I agree with him.. just not with so much swearing :P
(Warning: Contains ranting, raving, swearing, consumption of alcohol, and hairy man-nipples)


Re-writing the Bible

[Jefepato]

Are we actually sure that Conservapedia isn't a joke site?

[Callie Del Noire]

Don't know.. but this makes me cry that these knuckle draggers are responsible for ..well any effort at all.

[RubySlippers]

I don't understand what is wrong with a modern translation like the popular one I use in my ministry work the New Living Translation. I always felt strongly if a Bible is not readable by a common person in their own language and in a use that is popular its not a good Bible. The point is to get the message out and read it that was the whole point of the Reformation to not have a Latin only Bible controlled by one faith.

As for altering the text there is adding and subtracting from the Word and taking the idea and writing it in a way a person can enjoy reading it, and still means the same thing. I feel strongly the NLT does that well.

Using the logic of that verse above there should never have been any translations from the original Hebrew and Greek languages and make people study to read the Bible. After all any translation is going to change the original language of the biblical books to some degree. If one thinks about it seriously.

[Oniya]

Let's say I'm happy to be Greek. So I can read my NT in the original (and the OT in the Septuagint translation, which predates agendas).

*has major floatyhearts for this*

My husband was bar mitzvah'ed, so at one point, he could read the OT in Hebrew - or at least the first 5 books.

[Kate]

hey btw to all "pro-Christians"...

Alot of flack can go your way from those that don't beleive

- to those that dont nor want to - it does seem a lot of flack historically has been thrown around by them to this day though ( ... crusades aside ... )

but if any really do jump down your throat saying all christianity = all things bad

Remind them of one thing most dont know....

In the dark ages the ONLY people in the west who were literate were those of priestly order - (they knew latin and a snippets of other stuff)

Without THEM translating the Rosetta stone / ancient greek tablets to rediscover western philosophy and bring on the Renaissance wouldn't have been possible.

and YES the church has done a lot of bad but it has done a LOT of good also
(Charity/ orphanages/ funding schools hospitals public works like wells etc ... )
... and still does.

[Mathim]

Isn't the bible just a work of fiction anyway? The mythology of a lot of the stories is plagiarized from other cultures that predate the writing of the bible, and there are lots of other things, like the fact that it's written by MAN, not any god. So it makes sense they're going to want to capitalize on those facts; just re-write it the way they want to fit their perfect bourgeoisie worldview.

[Cythieus]

Let's say I'm happy to be Greek. So I can read my NT in the original (and the OT in the Septuagint translation, which predates agendas).

Do you really think that? You know that the Catholic Church and the Jewish one both edited their parts of the Bible, they decided what books stayed and what went. Even the Latin Vulgate has been tampered with. This is why books like Enoch are considered non-Biblical and yet they fit so well and actually explain a lot of the issues in other books better.

There's a Gospel of Saint Tomas, A Book of Adam and Eve, and I think there are some others. The names of Angels were taken out and depending on what religion you are, you Bible still might be different. Catholic and Greek Bibles have more than Protestants.

Oh religion.

Christain's as a whole mean well, I do believe they generally do want peace and "souls saved",
and perhaps some miracles did happen, strange things do in this world.

What I DONT understand is they already know that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were at best followers of Jesus - writing what they recall he did etc 20 years after his death.

Even with an intention to be as accurate as possible, their recall will change due to their perspective of interpretation, what they write will change due to their intention.

If christianity believed the views of JC were effectively that of god ... the dead sea scrolls (reputably written by JC himself without others putting their lean on it) is probably a safer bet.

Proving it was JC that wrote them, not so easy, proving that "JC's" understanding of the language and the views of god for the contexts he is writing in, not so easy, proving that JC's approach suit others ... not so easy.... unless you don't look for that and have faith in it being right in the first place.

As historical documents the bibles is useful .... perspective of God expressed ?
God that I though JC himself mentioned was not understandable by the mind of man let alone
capture-able by the languages of mankind... Logically ? No.

Faith ?

Hmm ... faith is a super placebo, the power of belief I think is real,
in a word faith is confidence in life for whatever you are thinking ...
which I do beleive in.

The problem with all of that is that, the Bible says not to hate gays, it says that early Christians lived in Socialist type communities and these people are starting to see their own argument works against them.

And it is believed that some of the books were written as long as almost 100 years later.

[Lilias]

Do you really think that? You know that the Catholic Church and the Jewish one both edited their parts of the Bible, they decided what books stayed and what went. Even the Latin Vulgate has been tampered with. This is why books like Enoch are considered non-Biblical and yet they fit so well and actually explain a lot of the issues in other books better.

There's a Gospel of Saint Tomas, A Book of Adam and Eve, and I think there are some others. The names of Angels were taken out and depending on what religion you are, you Bible still might be different. Catholic and Greek Bibles have more than Protestants.

Yes, I actually do think that. The Septuagint translation dates from the 3rd-1st century BC. And the lack of a 'church' agenda is precisely the reason why the Orthodox OT has more books - there was no Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal controversy.

[Oniya]

Are these the same people that say 'If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me'?   ::)

[Cythieus]

Yes, I actually do think that. The Septuagint translation dates from the 3rd-1st century BC. And the lack of a 'church' agenda is precisely the reason why the Orthodox OT has more books - there was no Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal controversy.

But remember that the edits I am talking about date back to around 240 something (if I remember correctly). Enoch was so opposed that burn orders were sent out, the book is only around now because some African Churches kept some. In a time when the Church had that much control and literacy is lower, its a lot easier to change the tide of what people know as the book. Some of these books are held up alongside the other books of the Bible for a long time before suddenly becoming Heresy and vanishing. It worries me because even with the complete copies we have from back then, its hard to say what is and isn't there and what might have been lost forever in all the translating and editing.

But I agree, no one should be trying to edit the Bible for their political purpose.

[Valerian]

A quick Google search makes it seem as though nothing from the Bible has been edited out (like the Book of Enoch) since a bunch of bishops got together in the fourth century AD and pulled out a few things they didn't like.  So I'm thinking anything BC is pretty well intact.

NB: Val is not even close to being a biblical scholar, and is apparently one of those unwashed liberal heathens that need to be tricked into reading the Bible in order to refute the conservatives.

However, I find it funny (in a really, really sad sort of way) that so much effort is being put into this.  I don't know a thing about the Bible, but I do know something about the problems of translation -- and in this case, we're not only talking about translating from language to language, but from era to era.  I wrote an entire term paper on those problems in college and still barely scratched the surface; and in that case, my example was translating from 18th century French to today's English.  That's nothing compared to the magnitude of translating the Bible.

It doesn't matter if a divine force makes perfect, original copies of every biblical manuscript appear -- you're still going to have an awful time making them both readable and accurate for most people, even without worrying about the fine points of when 'comrade' is more accurate than 'volunteer', or whether 'casting lots' is better than 'gambling'.  (Gambling probably makes most people think of a Vegas casino these days, anyway.)

Whoever's working on this is going to wear themselves out to no good purpose, but hey, they're grownups.  Maybe they're enjoying themselves.

[The Overlord]

One of my best friends has his opinions on this matter as well, and personally, I agree with him.. just not with so much swearing :P
(Warning: Contains ranting, raving, swearing, consumption of alcohol, and hairy man-nipples)


Re-writing the Bible

“If I cannot move heaven, then I will raise hell.”

Damn, that’s good. *writes that one down*


‘Note the dick quotes’…exactly what I was talking about it. If you can sit through the whole thing he makes some very solid points I am in complete agreement with.

I must say, however, a beer-sodden shirtless rant…dude put on a T-shirt or something. Had to put this one on audio only in the background as I surfed another page…hairy man booby never going to help sell your point.   :-X

[Avi]

I will just quote this:

"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, and if anyone takes away from them, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

In short, go on and do it. I don't fee sympathy for them.

Amen, brother. 

On another note, for a truly depressing experience, read their entry about President Obama.

[OldSchoolGamer]

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Specifically, they say they are going to remove the quote from Jesus, "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."

They also say they are going to remove socialist parables by Jesus and replace them with free market parables, so as to prove that Jesus was not a socialist but rather a capitalist.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible

In a way, I'm glad this is happening.  Perhaps this will wake up Americans and get them to realize that conservative does not equal Christian.  When the conservatives have to alter the words of Christ to fit their narrow agenda, that right there should speak volumes.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

“If I cannot move heaven, then I will raise hell.”

Damn, that’s good. *writes that one down*


‘Note the dick quotes’…exactly what I was talking about it. If you can sit through the whole thing he makes some very solid points I am in complete agreement with.

I must say, however, a beer-sodden shirtless rant…dude put on a T-shirt or something. Had to put this one on audio only in the background as I surfed another page…hairy man booby never going to help sell your point.   :-X

Pssht. You obviously have never seen *real* hairy man booby!

Umm...Hi! I was told I got advertised here, and my ego wouldn't let me *not* come and see.

Yeah. THe idea of them *re-writing* the bible...ugh. Let's just say I agree with everything in that video. Including the swearing :P

[Serephino]

One of my best friends has his opinions on this matter as well, and personally, I agree with him.. just not with so much swearing :P
(Warning: Contains ranting, raving, swearing, consumption of alcohol, and hairy man-nipples)

I like your friend.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Serephino]

Yeah, gotta love that in the Bible it says it's a sin to change it, but it's been changed how many times?  In my opinion, it's all a bunch of made up crap created to control the masses anyway.  The reason peasants were illiterate in the Dark Ages was because it's easier to control the un-educated.  That is also why is was practically a crime to teach slaves to read when slavery existed.

Though sadly it still seems that the masses are pretty easy to control.  I honestly hope this will wake some people up, but I'm not going to be all that optimistic. 

[Kate]

Well if it was restored to the original words then the meaning would be lost
as language meaning evolves.

If you want to retain meaning you have to change the language, if you want to leave the language the same, you have to let go of meaning being retained.

You can not optimise a changlessness for something that is philosophical on all fronts.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Yeah, gotta love that in the Bible it says it's a sin to change it, but it's been changed how many times?  In my opinion, it's all a bunch of made up crap created to control the masses anyway.  The reason peasants were illiterate in the Dark Ages was because it's easier to control the un-educated.  That is also why is was practically a crime to teach slaves to read when slavery existed.

In all fairness, I don't think the actions of the Catholic Church as it existed in the Middle Ages should be held as a reason to bash the Bible.  Much of the corruption in the Church at that time was against Scripture. 

Can you cite a passage of Scripture forbidding masters from teaching slaves how to read?  Counseling slave-holders not to teach slaves to read?  If not, then your (justifiable) umbrage at the practices of slaveholders keeping slaves illiterate should be directed elsewhere (like at those age-old vices of greed and avarice).

As far as the Bible being changed, you have a point...but you've got to go further back, to the time when the early Church decided to omit certain books and passages from what we now know as the Bible.

[Kate]

Wouldn't it be cool if a alien race contacted earth and said

"Hey dudes, we have been watching you for 5000 year's ... and we are sort of bored now so will move on to other projects but before we go ... here take this it is an accurate recording of all of your history during that time ... so what budda did and what he didnt do, what JC did and what he didn't do ... mis-quotes ... cover ups, conspiracies, lost treasures ra ra ra ....

all yours ... We thought of messing with it - gosh it was tempting but then we realised the truth would be more staggeringly amazing than anything we could do with it.

Oh by the way ... the one thing we got from this was how damn good cooks the french, italians and pretty much on average all of the eastern countries are ... oh setting up restaurants over the universe with some of their recopies is going to be fun as hell.

the rest of you give up and stop trying, just copy what they do... well this comment is mainly aimed at the american's, australian's and the English really ... roasts are so so I suppose but that black pudding stuff ... errgh ...

Oh and take this very seriously as we almost leveled your entire world after tasting it once,
just out of fear the fad would somehow catch on, some other advanced races wouldn't hesitate to follow through with such impluses, wars have been triggered over less ...

So um there you go and um .... cya weirdo's ..."

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Thanks! Feel free to watch my other videos! (Most of them I have a shirt on in :P)

[kylie]

but if any really do jump down your throat saying all christianity = all things bad

Remind them of one thing most dont know....

In the dark ages the ONLY people in the west who were literate were those of priestly order - (they knew latin and a snippets of other stuff)

Without THEM translating the Rosetta stone / ancient greek tablets to rediscover western philosophy and bring on the Renaissance wouldn't have been possible. 

    The Renaissance, I was taught, was pretty much overlapping with the witch hunts in rotating quarters.  Very scientific departments of demonology and all that.  That is not to say the West has not has its technical and philosophical gems as well...  But really, we all think our more culturally celebrated and familiar points are the best ones...  Surely no one else could possibly, ever have anything like them and make something of them if the history were just a wee bit different (such as if Christianity hadn't inspired those lovely, "advanced" nation-states all scurrying around the world conquering and converting)... 

I'm not sure it's really such a strong argument.  This is more in the line of, "But you wouldn't feel so free and comfy now if our cultural forefathers hadn't invested us in all this horror, abuse and alienation."  Again, there are a few gems...  But were those really the only choices? 

     Not that I would limit it to what happened before Christianity crashed through everyone else's space...  But at least in East Asia, they had serious literacy among more elites (and "petit" elites - think women!).  Hey, many of them even commonly took baths.

[RubySlippers]

Is Christianity the problem after all if one looks at the message and life of Jesus to what the churches are like ,not all but many, is that what He wanted?

I look at the Vatican, megachurches, Mormon temples and think is this the best and most honorable way to honor God. I argue that the vast wealth wasted over the two thousand years instead of doing good works with that money.

[Kate]

Ruby -

Other faiths and teachings hold peace and being one with god also - those that pre-date Christianity. The dominate eastern religions I know of are highly spiritual debatably more than Christianity.

But after a certain level of spiritual awareness of any faith that does instill similar values ... similar abilities come ... Saint Francis had "miraculous" abilities concerning animals - they would flock to him and just want to be with him, I'm pretty sure if you met Buddha when he was at his height his aura of tranquility and peace would be literally breathtaking i personally beleive at a similar caliber to any of the "greats" - likely there are many more I don't know of from different cultures. Which ones are "greater" really is academic when we are striving to have a fraction of either of their inner audiences, personally I would benefit from any of them most likely. If JC and budda met likely they wouldn't need to convince the other of anything they would sense the other has already "got it" and sees the perfection in their current state and that of one that is needless.

Kylie - concerning the west...

I only meant this from western history ... the "current West" owes many of its techniques from the east and middle east (medicine, a lot of mathmatics, the printing press, a lot of astronomy let alone gun power (Im not sure about alchemy ... but its likely ) (could have gained a lot of astromony also from the Astecs if the west bothered trying to learn the culture before killing it off ... )...

Generally up until only recently the East was waaay head of the west on most things but the East never really were that interested in conquering the west they were busy with their own issues and frankly were happy enough doing some trade with the middle east but pretty much from a western perspective didnt really exist... they were "there" ... but no real overlap of culture until marco-polo.

The Rosetta stone enabled several languages to be translated - opening more and more languages previously all "greek"... then knowledge for its own sake had really quick returns.

Also the languages of the east are very different to the romantic languges, syntax, structure etc ... is SOO different, different use of tense, also pitch sensitive meaning.... to the western solar learning another languages that wasn't eastern had faster returns - however learning Chinese or Cantonese or Mandarin or something would have given them super-boons once they got over it... but finding a teacher that knew your language and one of them would be close to impossible. Learning an eastern languages would take longer.

(nothing existed that was in a western and an eastern language at the same time)

Western society fell after rome collapsed as their wasn't anything literate that conquered it... after which the dark ages reigned ( and only monestaries separate to the ruling warlords retained anything literate at all ... that of latin)

[The Overlord]

Pssht. You obviously have never seen *real* hairy man booby!

Umm...Hi! I was told I got advertised here, and my ego wouldn't let me *not* come and see.

Yeah. THe idea of them *re-writing* the bible...ugh. Let's just say I agree with everything in that video. Including the swearing :P

Yeah, hm, and I don’t really need to. I may be biased though; I’m a relatively hairless guy. ::)


Anyhoo, my real point is it might distract some of your intended audience as just some crazy drunk guy on the web. Not sure if any of bastards you’re ranting at are among that intended audience; I have a feeling you’d be falling on deaf ears. Those types like to see it as they see it.



Setting all politics and theology aside for a moment, I am firmly of the conviction there is a fundamental core difference in the mindset and pattern of thinking between hardcore conservatives and most of the rest of us, not just liberals perhaps.

And I do want to stress I am referring here to the hardcore conservative bible-thumper you’re directing this video at, not all conservatives across the board: I must reiterate this point because a few members of this forum like to accuse me of making general ‘blanket statements’…you know who you are.


I have an overtly Christian aunt in Texas, and a fiery non-cessationist cousin in Arizona, so I don’t even have to come here if I want a good fiery debate. They are a good example on how the brains are wired differently, if not on a nature level as well certainly on a nurture level. It comes down to how far into the hard mentality you are, on a scale of one to ten. This hardcore mindset is most comfortable in the herd. The sort of ideas they subscribe to are what they want to see in the world around them. To paraphrase the late Dr. Sagan, they’re after what makes them feel good, and not after things as they really are. It comes down to you being happy being told how things are, as opposed to skeptically interrogating the universe for the answers.

At risk of sounding a tad smug, I believe it’s a generally fragile psyche, very resistant to change and new concepts. What science tells us, that we do not occupy a privileged position as a species or on the star charts, that some loving father-figure is not going save our asses if we irrevocably fuck our planet up…well, it’s a big, scary universe for some folks. And it’s a universe painted in subtle shades of grey, not the more comfortable and simplistic black & white these types want. Better to write the books so it fits what you’d like to see.

[Cythieus]

I kind of see this as being like when George Lucas digitally enhanced and edited Star Wars to "make it better" and the shit storm that produced.

[Oniya]

*coughs* Han shot first. *coughs*

I find myself agreeing with Ty here.  When the ultraconservatives (let's be honest here, these guys have to be in the long tail of the distribution) feel they have to re-write the Word of God - which is what 90% of them consider the Bible to be - in order to win, then they have already lost the argument.

[Avi]

When the ultraconservatives (let's be honest here, these guys have to be in the long tail of the distribution) feel they have to re-write the Word of God - which is what 90% of them consider the Bible to be - in order to win, then they have already lost the argument.

Well said.  I think that's what the main issue of this was, not the whole debate about whether Christian belief is consistent with the Bible.  Most Christians I know are reasonable, likable people who have their beliefs, and I respect that.  I may disagree with them on some points, but that's what makes my relationships with them fun.

The issue is when people are clearly trying to change the Bible to suit their political agenda.  Every crackpot thinks God is on their side... have any of us ever considered that, just maybe, God thinks we're all idiots for arguing over stuff like this?

[The Overlord]

  Every crackpot thinks God is on their side... have any of us ever considered that, just maybe, God thinks we're all idiots for arguing over stuff like this?

If god is a conscious and rational being…yes. And if god is there, then he must be benevolent and not the vengeful god of the Old Testament, otherwise I’d understand a 100-mile wide asteroid suddenly appearing above the planet and taking us all out for this stupidity.


Where it gets its absolute worst is where everyone believes god is on their side, and he has given them license to kill, perhaps even be rewarded for it.

On one hand I suppose I’d be inclined to pity the 9/11 hijackers for this failing, but I don’t, as their crimes are utterly unforgivable. Suffice that they went down into the dark as the worst kind of evolutionary dead-end.

[Chea]

Conservapedia is a huge heap of shit. Theists and their foolish religious beliefs are doomed to rot in their idiocy. If this omnipotent god existed wouldn't he've created a perfect bible that is unalterable? I mean that'd be the logical "perfect" solution to prevent this, this is yet another piece of evidence disproving theism.

[Cythieus]

Conservapedia is a huge heap of shit. Theists and their foolish religious beliefs are doomed to rot in their idiocy. If this omnipotent god existed wouldn't he've created a perfect bible that is unalterable? I mean that'd be the logical "perfect" solution to prevent this, this is yet another piece of evidence disproving theism.

This isn't evidence of anything, and I find it pretty offensive to be called an idiot simply because I believe in something contrary to what you do. One can't disprove God simply because people are doing bad things because that's the nature of people and its just how some people are. You can't speculate on the nature of God or his or her true intentions so to say he or she wouldn't want to do this or not do that is pretty much you shooting in the dark.

Moreover, if there is a god that's not omnipotent or a set of gods, you're still wrong because Theism includes all of these terms. Theism doesn't equal Christians/Jews/Muslims only. It includes any belief that has to do with a higher being that could be considered a god or any set of beings that could be considered gods.

In fact there's so much wrong in just the four sentences you wrote that it seems you don't understand the terms your using or what they mean. Omnipotent doesn't mean they have to subscribe to your view of logic because logic in and of itself is a Human concept and the concepts of a god have the potential to have existed before anything else.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

This isn't evidence of anything, and I find it pretty offensive to be called an idiot simply because I believe in something contrary to what you do. One can't disprove God simply because people are doing bad things because that's the nature of people and its just how some people are. You can't speculate on the nature of God or his or her true intentions so to say he or she wouldn't want to do this or not do that is pretty much you shooting in the dark.

Moreover, if there is a god that's not omnipotent or a set of gods, you're still wrong because Theism includes all of these terms. Theism doesn't equal Christians/Jews/Muslims only. It includes any belief that has to do with a higher being that could be considered a god or any set of beings that could be considered gods.

In fact there's so much wrong in just the four sentences you wrote that it seems you don't understand the terms your using or what they mean. Omnipotent doesn't mean they have to subscribe to your view of logic because logic in and of itself is a Human concept and the concepts of a god have the potential to have existed before anything else.

Well, I think we can at least all agree that Conservapedia is a huge heap of shit.

[Cythieus]

Well, I think we can at least all agree that Conservapedia is a huge heap of shit.

I wouldn't debate that. Anyone wanting to alter old books to fit their political whims deserves a special place in Hell.

[Chea]

You raise reasonable counterarguements Odin, but it so happens that I'm a linguist and have vast knowledge about words of the English superstradum which are of Greek and Latin origin. As my standard procedure I personally don't use words whose definition I haven't mastered. The term omnipotent can be easily separated into its two rootwords, whom are both Latin. Omni meaning "all", and Potent meaning "powerful" ultimately deriving from potens "power". The word Theism can likewise may be analyzed in the same manner, The from the Greek root Theos meaning God (Theos is a cognate to the Latin word Deus) and Ism a Greek suffix which denotes an idea, doctrine, or belief.

Logic is the mode d'emploi of reality not a Human construct. It seems I must explain my angle in greater detail. I don't believe Theism in any form is idiotic meerly because it's an ideology differing from my own, I'd never be so shallow! My reasoning against Theism comes from years of thinking the world over, the Human Contidition, the Cosmos, and quite simply common sense! Caveat Creditor, engaging in conversation with me will make you question your faith in your "God". There is not a Theist theory that I nor any other Atheist can't disprove, though you're welcome to try me any time. Infact I'd enjoy debating with you.

[Avi]

I find it questionable to call Theists idiots when, quite frankly, there are idiot atheists too.  Glass houses and all that... In any case, believe what you wish, I know what I believe, and I'll defend my beliefs.

[Cythieus]

You raise reasonable counterarguements Odin, but it so happens that I'm a linguist and have vast knowledge about words of the English superstradum which are of Greek and Latin origin. As my standard procedure I personally don't use words whose definition I haven't mastered. The term omnipotent can be easily separated into its two rootwords, whom are both Latin. Omni meaning "all", and Potent meaning "powerful" ultimately deriving from potens "power". The word Theism can likewise may be analyzed in the same manner, The from the Greek root Theos meaning God (Theos is a cognate to the Latin word Deus) and Ism a Greek suffix which denotes an idea, doctrine, or belief.

Logic is the mode d'emploi of reality not a Human construct. It seems I must explain my angle in greater detail. I don't believe Theism in any form is idiotic meerly because it's an ideology differing from my own, I'd never be so shallow! My reasoning against Theism comes from years of thinking the world over, the Human Contidition, the Cosmos, and quite simply common sense! Caveat Creditor, engaging in conversation with me will make you question your faith in your "God". There is not a Theist theory that I nor any other Atheist can't disprove, though you're welcome to try me any time. Infact I'd enjoy debating with you.

As I said before, the assumption that we are in the place to question a god's logic with our own limited understanding shows a lack of understanding for what a true all powerful god would mean.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

As I said before, the assumption that we are in the place to question a god's logic with our own limited understanding shows a lack of understanding for what a true all powerful god would mean.

This, pretty much.

Plus, I've never heard any argument that counters the idea of a neutral divine being who's ominpotent and created everything, but is totally cool with just sitting back and watching things happen. Well, I've heard the "Then why bother worshipping it!?" argument, but that's kind of like asking why do X thing that has no discernable benefit. Because I feel like it.

[Chea]

I find it questionable to call Theists idiots when, quite frankly, there are idiot atheists too.  Glass houses and all that... In any case, believe what you wish, I know what I believe, and I'll defend my beliefs.

Huh.......Glass Houses? Wut?

As I said before, the assumption that we are in the place to question a god's logic with our own limited understanding shows a lack of understanding for what a true all powerful god would mean.

No offense but I don't believe in your omnipotent deity, so I have nothing to fear. Human progress comes from our inherent curiousity, if we continue to allow the mind numbing doctrines of theistic belief systems to halt our development, humankind will become desolate and backward.

[Cythieus]

No offense but I don't believe in your omnipotent deity, so I have nothing to fear. Human progress comes from our inherent curiousity, if we continue to allow the mind numbing doctrines of theistic belief systems to halt our development, humankind will become desolate and backward.

I didn't ask you any of that and you didn't counter anything. Don't brag that you can counter any argument and then begin with a strawman about how you don't believe in my deity. I am simply questioning how we can question the logic behind a being that predates our knowledge of logic and possibly has a superior one based on absolute truths that we can't perceive.

In other words why should I care what kind of logic my dog, or insects or jellyfish use and why would I, if I could know this, want to apply their lackluster, simpleton logic to myself.

Instead of talking about the Human aspect of theism try talking about the base belief.

[Neroon]

Steady on there, mate.  This thread is supposed to be about the pros and cons of retranslation/rewriting of the Bible not a debate on which team is better, the atheists or the believers.

Let's keep it well mannered and let's avoid descending into trolling.  I'm sure we don't want to have to lock this thread, do we?

[Avi]

Huh.......Glass Houses? Wut?

"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."  In other words, don't criticize someone for something when you're not practicing what you preach.  I personally find it reprehensible for people on either side of the debate to call the other side foolish or idiotic, since both sides have stupid people and extremists included within them.

[Cythieus]

Steady on there, mate.  This thread is supposed to be about the pros and cons of retranslation/rewriting of the Bible not a debate on which team is better, the atheists or the believers.

Let's keep it well mannered and let's avoid descending into trolling.  I'm sure we don't want to have to lock this thread, do we?

I didn't mean to drag the debate off topic, I think that at the heart of this, things like the Conservative Bible stem from a lack of understanding about what the other side is all about. There are conservatives out there who literally think that a liberal ideal is synonymous with the Devil.

We need to understand people are just PEOPLE.

[HairyHeretic]

You'll find idiots everywhere, with every set of beliefs known to man. Whatever your opinion of others beliefs, they have as much right to them as you to yours. While debating here, you will show respect for others, so no name calling.

[The Overlord]

If this omnipotent god existed wouldn't he've created a perfect bible that is unalterable? I mean that'd be the logical "perfect" solution to prevent this, this is yet another piece of evidence disproving theism.

I believe it definitely disproves theism as it’s been handed to use by the popular faiths.


Injecting a little more logic and critical thinking into this-


If god is truly omniscient and omnipotent, than yes, god knows what we’re all up to and is certainly capable of preventing it…but yet doesn’t prevent it.

The common counter-argument here is the free will debate, but only goes so far before it starts breaking down.

If god is giving us enough free will indiscriminately kill each other and ravage the planet, endangers other species and not just our own, then god condones this level of discord and violence on some level, and there goes any idea of that loving, father figure of a supreme being.

Religionists will always grasp further and further and squeak in any possible factor to get their proof that their book is right, even to the extent of throwing logic and common sense to the four winds.

We must first come down to the first fundamental truth here- The Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other theological writings are not the word of god. They are the words and inventions of those mortal men who would have you believe they are representing god, and nobody represents god.



When you cut out all the bullshit and non-logic it comes down to one glaringly obvious conclusion- God simply isn’t there in any form or definition that these books are explaining the creator in.

[Serephino]

Can you cite a passage of Scripture forbidding masters from teaching slaves how to read?  Counseling slave-holders not to teach slaves to read?  If not, then your (justifiable) umbrage at the practices of slaveholders keeping slaves illiterate should be directed elsewhere (like at those age-old vices of greed and avarice).

I never said the Bible said slaves shouldn't be allowed to read.  Someone said something about priests being the only ones who were literate in the middle ages and that meant something.  Though I could also point out that nobility could read as well.  I was just saying the only reason the common people couldn't read is because of the logic that uneducated people are easier to control.  You seem to have misunderstood me there.  I should've been more clear. 

It isn't in the Bible, but if you study American History, it was illegal to teach a slave how to read in the South.  Again, because the uneducated are easier to control.

Also, I'm very much aware that in order to have it translated into English for people to read it is impossible for it to have been done without losing a little something in the translation.  That is one of the major reason I personally don't trust it.  It just pisses me off that people point out that little sentence that it's a horrible unforgivable sin to change anything in it so it must all be the true word of God.  I know damn well it's been changed in translation if nothing else. 

[Serephino]

For the record, I'm not against Christians in general, just the stupid ones.  In fact, I dislike stupid closed minded people in general, so I'm not discriminating there. 

In this topic I've just been talking about the morons that feel the need to change the Bible.  Of course I also said I think the Bible is a bunch of bull anyway...  That's my opinion and I have my reasons for it.  That and other books are cases of humans putting words into God's mouth. 

Why doesn't he do anything about it?  I don't know.  I'll admit I can't answer that question, but that's not proof he doesn't exist.  I agree with whoever said he's probably watching us grumbling about what idiots we all are. 

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

[Neroon]

I believe it definitely disproves theism as it’s been handed to use by the popular faiths.


Injecting a little more logic and critical thinking into this-


If god is truly omniscient and omnipotent, than yes, god knows what we’re all up to and is certainly capable of preventing it…but yet doesn’t prevent it.

The common counter-argument here is the free will debate, but only goes so far before it starts breaking down.

If god is giving us enough free will indiscriminately kill each other and ravage the planet, endangers other species and not just our own, then god condones this level of discord and violence on some level, and there goes any idea of that loving, father figure of a supreme being.

Religionists will always grasp further and further and squeak in any possible factor to get their proof that their book is right, even to the extent of throwing logic and common sense to the four winds.

We must first come down to the first fundamental truth here- The Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other theological writings are not the word of god. They are the words and inventions of those mortal men who would have you believe they are representing god, and nobody represents god.



When you cut out all the bullshit and non-logic it comes down to one glaringly obvious conclusion- God simply isn’t there in any form or definition that these books are explaining the creator in.

Far be it from me to go against my suggestion that we not stray from the original point on the thread but your post was interesting enough to tempt me to it.

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

For example, your assertion that an omniscient and omnipotent god would want to create an unalterable bible is not necessarily true and would allow for the following counterargument to your proof of the non-existence of said omniscient and omnipotent god.

Our putative deity would know that human society is bound to progress and that, consequently, any unchanging scripture would gradually become irrelevent as a result.  Quite simply, society would leave it behind unless that scripture was able to evolve.  Thus all of the interpretations and retranslations of scripture would not be prevented by any omniscient and omnipotent god but would, in fact, be encouraged as the means of bringing about the evolution of scripture. 

Moreover, said god would also know that any possible worshippers might have very variable needs with respect to fulfilling their religious duties.  Hence variable interpretations allowing a multitude of sects would also be encouraged as it gives a way for more people to become worshippers.  All paths to the summit of the moutain are valid so long as you reach the summit, to loosely quote a Hindu saying.

That's the trouble with trying to argue the non-existence of whichever deity you want.  There's always a loophole which will allow a believer to ignore all your brilliant feats of logic.  Of course, that applies as much when the person you're arguing with fervently believes that no form of god can exist as when they are as devoted to their chosen deity as imaginable.

Oh crap! I've just realised that, while I really dislike the idea of the "conservative Bible, I've just argued- in the religious mode that is- that it might be a good idea.

See what you made me do?  *grins ruefully*

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Far be it from me to go against my suggestion that we not stray from the original point on the thread but your post was interesting enough to tempt me to it.

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

For example, your assertion that an omniscient and omnipotent god would want to create an unalterable bible is not necessarily true and would allow for the following counterargument to your proof of the non-existence of said omniscient and omnipotent god.

Our putative deity would know that human society is bound to progress and that, consequently, any unchanging scripture would gradually become irrelevent as a result.  Quite simply, society would leave it behind unless that scripture was able to evolve.  Thus all of the interpretations and retranslations of scripture would not be prevented by any omniscient and omnipotent god but would, in fact, be encouraged as the means of bringing about the evolution of scripture. 

Moreover, said god would also know that any possible worshippers might have very variable needs with respect to fulfilling their religious duties.  Hence variable interpretations allowing a multitude of sects would also be encouraged as it gives a way for more people to become worshippers.  All paths to the summit of the moutain are valid so long as you reach the summit, to loosely quote a Hindu saying.

That's the trouble with trying to argue the non-existence of whichever deity you want.  There's always a loophole which will allow a believer to ignore all your brilliant feats of logic.  Of course, that applies as much when the person you're arguing with fervently believes that no form of god can exist as when they are as devoted to their chosen deity as imaginable.

Oh crap! I've just realised that, while I really dislike the idea of the "conservative Bible, I've just argued- in the religious mode that is- that it might be a good idea.

See what you made me do?  *grins ruefully*

Thankfully, you only *almost* made that argument.

No one's arguing that the bible shouldn't occasionally have the ancient manuscripts re-looked at to ensure appropriate translation, and that the explination and meaning of the parables and what not can't be re-examined to make sense to modern modes of thinking. Well, no one who understands how this stuff works is arguing that, anyway.

What Conservapedia is doing is not that. They're taking the King James version (in it's original English) and deducing meaning from *that*.

IT's kind of like playing a game of telephone, taking the sentence when it's in the middle of it's course, and proclaiming that you're going to figure out the *real* meaning of the statement from that.

[Neroon]

Thanks.  I was starting to feel a little iffy there!

[Oniya]

I actually caught a news blurb this morning about a pastor that has declared the KJV to be the only valid Bible, to the point of actually burning other Bibles.  O_o

[Neroon]

I assume he means the second edition and not the first edition, all copies of which were burned after it was realised that they had omitted the not from the seventh commandment.

[The Overlord]

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

Pared down, this is sadly the gist of the debate. As I was saying earlier, I firmly am convinced it comes down how a brain is wired, socially if not physically.

I realize this is going to risk sounding insulting, but it’s not far off from trying to break it to a kid that Santa Claus isn’t real, and they’re going deeper into a tantrum and irrationality and tears, the more you try to tell them. And these days with the crazy religious and political crap I see in the US, I tend to wonder how far off the mark that analogy is.

You’re effectively trying to take away a security blanket…the true hardcore religionists, I tend to feel that they’re not very strong people. They want their convictions no matter what, and too bad if evidence and common sense gets in the way.



When you have to step further and further off the path of logic to back up your claim, you need to stop immediately and consider what you’re doing and how you arrived at that point.

Saying our logic can’t apply to god because god is unknowable is a bullshit tactic too, it’s just basically saying ‘well it’s magic, so I win the argument’.

As the video linked in my argument against faith thread said, the more qualities and details you put on a specific deity, you only end up massing the burden of proof against you that much more. Going the other way and trying to prove an abstract and unknowable god only makes it that much more irrelevant.



I guess it comes down to a good old fashioned stalemate. You might never win the argument with them, but they don’t even have the proverbial snowball’s chance in their Hell of ever winning it…except within the confines of their own skulls.

[kylie]

As the video linked in my argument against faith thread said, the more qualities and details you put on a specific deity, you only end up massing the burden of proof against you that much more. Going the other way and trying to prove an abstract and unknowable god only makes it that much more irrelevant.

I guess it comes down to a good old fashioned stalemate. You might never win the argument with them, but they don’t even have the proverbial snowball’s chance in their Hell of ever winning it…except within the confines of their own skulls.

     As far as simply arguing the existence of a certain intangible God (or not) goes, I think that about sums it up.  I was watching a campus protest and counter-protest for some time today...  Finally pointed out some historical issues with interpretations of the Bible to one of the avowedly anti-gay Christian protestors, only to be told essentially: Well this is what has been passed down for ages, see the cover it says "Holy Bible" doesn't it?  And I am simply convinced they are going to hell, so this is just my public service announcement. 

     What concerns me is that the Christian God often fielded by the evangelical American right seems to serve as a sly front for social platforms that are not explainable through good logic either.  While Christian philosophies have been used to do some good things, they have also been used to:

1.  Disempower women.  For one example:  In the process of power plays rejecting Gnosticism back smack between Jesus and the Bible as most people know it.
2.  Claim divine backing for colonialism and racism...  Black sexuality as "out of control," the Muslims "hate us for our freedoms" but God must be on our side, etc.
3.  Attempt to delay and scare away the increasingly real, popular progress of gay rights - not least by quoting passages from a language that didn't even have the idea of homosexuality... 

     So, we do not simply have a bunch of people saying, "I really believe in this book and you should or you'd go to Hell."  We have people saying that who are holding signs saying "God Hates Homosexuals" and many other things widely accepted among a younger, more liberal generation.  Evangelical Christians say they are concerned for your soul but often they take very pragmatic action.  These are designed to get in others' way, attempt to deny resources, and try to divide and conquer based on fear of things that are flat untrue or grossly misrepresented.  Anti-gay Evangelicals are not marching around with 10' high signs condemning everything from gays to "Jesus mockers" to video games and pizza simply as an expression of mere belief in a nice, comforting creator for themselves.  They want something from me.  At least enough to disrupt traffic around my campus long enough for someone to think, oh look a flashy political mob we have to deal with.

     This one selective, elitist book made by a papal gathering almost 400 years after Jesus (assuming disparate, retrospective authors got something right about him in the first place) to the exclusion of dozens of holy documents of the time, is continually held up as an excuse to hold or steal real social privileges.  Again, as mentioned in the video...  My problem is that disinterested persons and different, often less bullying persons are supposed to take the social policy demands on faith.  In fact, the political system lends some ear to these actions (and thus allow their clearly discriminatory agendas) simply because they create a ruckus.  This is simple dirty politics and it therefore gives spirituality a la the Christian Right a bad name.  Shouting in the street is one thing, but this is shouting about "my way or the highway."  It's not any sort of practical argument.

     It's not just the historical distortions of a book.  It's the book as a front for distortions of current reality that go unexamined because to ask more seriously debatable philosophical and practical policy questions is framed as an "attack on people's faith."  It would be nice to drop the faith -- and "faith versus orientation."  Instead of assuming one or the other type of household or relationship is always automatically good, let's talk about various how people from either side actually win and lose through their particular relationship models here on Earth.  About what kind of society each platform might build, and where that might go.  This is what's really at stake when we shout sexual freedom or oh, that's going to Hell.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That seems a bit unfair to lay that at the feet of the Bible.  People take documents from all sources and attempt to twist them to the way they wish for life to be.  From the Old Testament to the Koran to scientific studies, all of these items are manipulated into someone’s ideals.  Science has also been used to combat “social ills” and will continue to be twisted into such a way. 

[Cythieus]

That seems a bit unfair to lay that at the feet of the Bible.  People take documents from all sources and attempt to twist them to the way they wish for life to be.  From the Old Testament to the Koran to scientific studies, all of these items are manipulated into someone’s ideals.  Science has also been used to combat “social ills” and will continue to be twisted into such a way. 

Exactly, as much as some Christians use the Bible to press their bad agenda, Atheists use it the same way. People being manipulative is to blame, not Christianity or God or the belief in God.

[Chea]

For the record, I'm not against Christians in general, just the stupid ones.  In fact, I dislike stupid closed minded people in general, so I'm not discriminating there. 

In this topic I've just been talking about the morons that feel the need to change the Bible.  Of course I also said I think the Bible is a bunch of bull anyway...  That's my opinion and I have my reasons for it.  That and other books are cases of humans putting words into God's mouth. 

Why doesn't he do anything about it?  I don't know.  I'll admit I can't answer that question, but that's not proof he doesn't exist.  I agree with whoever said he's probably watching us grumbling about what idiots we all are. 

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

Well, It'd be stupid for "God" to expect people to believe in him if you have no proof he exists. We are the only people with the common sense to think " hey religion and the belief in deities are totally irrational".Why would any intelligent person worship something that doesn't present itself to the followers it supposedly has unconditional love for, and who it has never helped?

To be quite honest my personal beliefs don't even fit the Atheist M.O anymore, I'm much closer to becoming an Antitheist because fact the people still believe in that god stuff is ridiculous! I mean come on all you have to do is think alittle bit to notice that any form of theism is complete and utter nonsense.

[Oniya]

*drops a Babel Fish into the room, and proceeds to avoid zebra crossings for a while*

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Chea, I would sincerely ask that you show some respect for the beliefs of other people.  I think most people attempt to keep that simple bit of pleasantry.  Doing otherwise is simply provocative for the sake of wanting to cause trouble and is the quickest way to have these threads shut down.  Thus far your only contribution to this thread has been ridicule with little true substance.  Please be respectful of other belief systems and ways of life outside your own.

[Jude]

Well, It'd be stupid for "God" to expect people to believe in him if you have no proof he exists. We are the only people with the common sense to think " hey religion and the belief in deities are totally irrational".Why would any intelligent person worship something that doesn't present itself to the followers it supposedly has unconditional love for, and who it has never helped?

To be quite honest my personal beliefs don't even fit the Atheist M.O anymore, I'm much closer to becoming an Antitheist because fact the people still believe in that god stuff is ridiculous! I mean come on all you have to do is think a little bit to notice that any form of theism is complete and utter nonsense.

I'm sure if you try you can imagine a god that could exist.  Take deism for example; I don't see any logical contradictions there.  That's my problem with hard atheism; it's illogical to wipe out an entire array of possibilities because all of the examples you've seen were false.

I'm not saying it's likely that a god exists.  I'm simply saying that you don't know a god doesn't exist, and for that very reason saying "god doesn't exist" is just as much a statement of faith as saying "god does exist."  It may be a safer bet, but it's still a wager.  That's why I'm agnostic; I don't know if god exists and I don't see the point in hardening my position (or a compelling case for it either).

As far as Evangelicals go, hard atheists are helping create them.  People like Dawkins, etc. who have a very "your god does not exist and I look down on you for your point of view" way about them basically galvanize otherwise moderate people into being extremist.  Nothing causes people to take a radical viewpoint like coming up against another radical viewpoint in opposition to their own.

I agree religion should not intrude on public life.  Evangelical Christians disturb me; but so do Evangelical Atheists.  They're two sides of the same coin.  The solution to the problem does not include blind adherence, respect for, or conformation to either viewpoint.

Conservative commentators, religious figures, etc. have done an excellent job of making a segment of the country feel like their ideology is under attack.  Not all of the people in that group are intolerant bigots.  I think a lot of them would be perfectly fine with doing their own thing and letting other people live their own life the same way.

Most human beings become insecure and uncomfortable when they're surrounded by different cultures and people; we all feel best in our element.  Combine this with the outright attacks many atheist figures and groups like to make on religion and it's the perfect fuel for the zealot fire.

Every time I listen to conservative talk radio, I realize that the power isn't in what they're saying exactly, it's the examples and the way they twist them.  Atheists and other extremists give them those examples that they make their entire case off of.

[The Overlord]

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

No…let’s get that straight. YOU may be god’s ‘bitch’…not I.


I didn’t ask for this shit…I didn’t ask to be created and get dumped on this rock with you glorified monkeys and your trivial crap. But now that I’m here, I want some damned answers.

I don’t fear god, if god wants to face me down go for it. I’ll tell him straight up I want answers.

He wants my acknowledgment? What the hell do I care about how many levels up god may or may not be?

Through one cause or another, natural, god-given, or pure accident, I am cosmic material sprung up and evolved to the point that I can ask questions.

If a creator is so base and twisted that he wants to condemn me for the very thing he gave me the aptitude for, then I say bring that shit on. Don’t you dare send me to your opposite number…I’ll gladly work for him.

[Jude]

This reminds me of a personal favorite of mine.  I assure you it's well worth the read and implore you all to check it out.

    "But I've still better things about children. I've collected a
great, great deal about Russian children, Alyosha. There was a
little girl of five who was hated by her father and mother, 'most
worthy and respectable people, of good education and breeding.' You
see, I must repeat again, it is a peculiar characteristic of many
people, this love of torturing children, and children only. To all
other types of humanity these torturers behave mildly and
benevolently, like cultivated and humane Europeans; but they are
very fond of tormenting children, even fond of children themselves
in that sense. it's just their defencelessness that tempts the
tormentor, just the angelic confidence of the child who has no
refuge and no appeal, that sets his vile blood on fire. In every
man, of course, a demon lies hidden- the demon of rage, the demon of
lustful heat at the screams of the tortured victim, the demon of
lawlessness let off the chain, the demon of diseases that follow on
vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on.
    "This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture
by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her
for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater
refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in
a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though
a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained
to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with
excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother
could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a
little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her,
should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and
the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to
protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and
humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is
permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth,
for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that
diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world
of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I
say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten
the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little
ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll
leave off if you like."
    "Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.
    "One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so
characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of
Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It
was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century,
and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a
general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one
of those men- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then- who,
retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that
they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects.
There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of
two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor
neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels
of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys- all mounted,
and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a
stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound.
'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a
stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the
child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken- taken from his mother and
kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on
horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen,
all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are
summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the
mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a
gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The
general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked.
He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,'
commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs....
'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on
the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his
mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared
incapable of administering his estates. Well- what did he deserve?
To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings?
Speak, Alyosha!
    "To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a
pale, twisted smile.
    "Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a
pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha
Karamazov!"
    "What I said was absurd, but-"
    "That's just the point, that 'but'!" cried Ivan. "Let me tell you,
novice, that the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world
stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass
in it without them. We know what we know!"
    "What do you know?"
    "I understand nothing," Ivan went on, as though in delirium. "I
don't want to understand anything now. I want to stick to the fact.
I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If I try to understand
anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick
to the fact."
    "Why are you trying me?" Alyosha cried, with sudden distress.
"Will you say what you mean at last?"
    "Of course, I will; that's what I've been leading up to. You are
dear to me, I don't want to let you go, and I won't give you up to
your Zossima."
    Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very
sad.
    "Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer.
Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its
crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on
purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot
understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to
blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and
stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so
there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian
understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there
are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly;
that everything flows and finds its level- but that's only Euclidian
nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live by it! What comfort
is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect
simply and directly, and that I know it?- I must have justice, or I
will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time
and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have
believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me
rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair.
Surely I haven't suffered simply that I, my crimes and my
sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody
else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion
and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there
when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the
religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer.
But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them?
That's a question I can't answer. For the hundredth time I repeat,
there are numbers of questions, but I've only taken the children,
because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If
all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children
to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond all comprehension why they
should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should
they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of
the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand
solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity
with children. And if it is really true that they must share
responsibility for all their fathers' crimes, such a truth is not of
this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say,
perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you
see he didn't grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight
years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course,
what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in
heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that
lives and has lived cries aloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy
ways are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her
child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just,
O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and
all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't
accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take
my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that
if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps,
may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the
child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry
aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and
so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the
tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with
its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its
unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those
tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no
harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible?
By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What
do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since
those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of
harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I
don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to
swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then
I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the
mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She
dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will,
let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her
mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no
right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child
were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what
becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have
the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From
love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the
unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering
and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a
price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to
enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I
am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And
that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I
most respectfully return him the ticket."
    "That's rebellion," murmered Alyosha, looking down.
    "Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly.
"One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me
yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a
fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the
end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and
inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby
beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that
edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the
architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
    "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

[Chea]

Chea, I would sincerely ask that you show some respect for the beliefs of other people.  I think most people attempt to keep that simple bit of pleasantry.  Doing otherwise is simply provocative for the sake of wanting to cause trouble and is the quickest way to have these threads shut down.  Thus far your only contribution to this thread has been ridicule with little true substance.  Please be respectful of other belief systems and ways of life outside your own.

Are you trying to call me a troll, Askie? I'm bringing legit counterarguements to the table. But for the sake of preventing the thread from being closed and staying on topic, I'll keep all future post I make in this thread relevant to the topic at hand. And because I'm not an asshole, I apoligize for disrupting the ongoing debate here. Make no mistake though I'm a staunch antitheist......then again that's why I avoid these kinds of topics with my religious friends.  :P

[Cythieus]

So you mean to sat you're anti-something instead of standing on your own beliefs? Basically you're dedicating yourself to the purposeful downplaying of others because they don't believe like you? That's quite frankly silly and it seems childish. Why oppose someone, especially when their belief causes you no harm?

[Trieste]

I may be on staffly hiatus, but pretend I have my normal 'goddess' tag next to my name when I say this, because I'd rather not have to go get someone else to post it for me:

Chill out, watch your ad homs, take a deep breath and post reasonably. Reread logical fallacies. Contemplate your navel. Organize your record collection. Whatever you need to do to remain civil, go do it please. (Hint: Calling others' beliefs 'stupid' is not civil.)

Thank you.

[RubySlippers]

Evangelical Christians have certain basic teachings they tend to support as a group. The Bible if the infallible and inerrant word of God so the Bible is exactly as its written is the exact word of God and the entire book is exactly and truthfully as written. So that pretty much negates any rational arguement that it may have flaws they simply argue its perfect and God will explain any mysteries in it. Another thing is that Christianity it the only way to heaven and since the Bible is the perfect word of God if your homosexual or whatever your going right to the burning place if you actually act on it so they have to try and save you. And naturally that they must covert you Jesus commanded it after all so how is sort of flexible from nice to street preaching you may be offended by.

On this topic I think writing a Bible and making interpretations is part of the faith so they are not exactly doing anything wrong.

[Cythieus]

Evangelical Christians have certain basic teachings they tend to support as a group. The Bible if the infallible and inerrant word of God so the Bible is exactly as its written is the exact word of God and the entire book is exactly and truthfully as written. So that pretty much negates any rational arguement that it may have flaws they simply argue its perfect and God will explain any mysteries in it. Another thing is that Christianity it the only way to heaven and since the Bible is the perfect word of God if your homosexual or whatever your going right to the burning place if you actually act on it so they have to try and save you. And naturally that they must covert you Jesus commanded it after all so how is sort of flexible from nice to street preaching you may be offended by.

On this topic I think writing a Bible and making interpretations is part of the faith so they are not exactly doing anything wrong.

The problem is the Bible is about faith, not politics and they are clearly rewriting it for Political ends. In fact, in some cases they show blatant disregard for what is meant and are just removing references to things that contradict the political ideology they have selected (such as removing Socialism).

[Morven]

I do personally have a big suspicion that trolls have infiltrated the conservative bible project for the purpose of making its ludicrousness even more obvious.

[Cythieus]

I do personally have a big suspicion that trolls have infiltrated the conservative bible project for the purpose of making its ludicrousness even more obvious.

The idea in and of itself is pretty ludicrous. You can pretty much, thanks to this, propose that we remove anything we don't like from a holy book. Let's say I love me some adultery. But not just the Biblical definition where its fornication and the like, I just love cheating on people I am dating. Can I then take the Bible and edit all of the parts out that hint at that being wrong?

[Morven]

The idea in and of itself is pretty ludicrous. You can pretty much, thanks to this, propose that we remove anything we don't like from a holy book. Let's say I love me some adultery. But not just the Biblical definition where its fornication and the like, I just love cheating on people I am dating. Can I then take the Bible and edit all of the parts out that hint at that being wrong?

Well, assuming I was a conservative fundamentalist Christian, I could justify going back to the sources and seeing if the political biases of translators had given modern Bible translations that unjustifiedly tended towards their preferences, and correct them.

The other, though — it doesn't make any sense, from such a point of view.  And if you're not, why do you care?

Which is why I think it's a troll.  A good one, if so.

[Cythieus]

Well, assuming I was a conservative fundamentalist Christian, I could justify going back to the sources and seeing if the political biases of translators had given modern Bible translations that unjustifiedly tended towards their preferences, and correct them.

The other, though — it doesn't make any sense, from such a point of view.  And if you're not, why do you care?

Which is why I think it's a troll.  A good one, if so.

Many times people don't make sense, calling someone a Liberal and a Nazi and a Muslim and a Fundamentalist Christian all at the same time doesn't make sense either, but its happened to Obama and people still find a way to justify it. This isn't about making sense, its about them trying to demonize liberals. And I care because I'm a conservative leaning moderate and I'm sick and tired of seeing these people hijack parts of my values, infuse them with their political, corporate and social standards that are not there and then slap a religious sticker on it to force feed it to the masses using fear, racism and cultural/religious superiority, and hatred all to force agendas that are no more part of the actual value system than meat is of apple pie.

[Morven]

Malice, rather than incompetence?

[Cythieus]

Malice, rather than incompetence?

These people literally hate liberalism. I have seen Christian morning shows call liberalism direct road to Hell. And its not even because of things like gays and other things you would think. They literally associate liberals with socialists and somehow sharing with the group means you're totally evil.

[Morven]

That's really strange.  What's the reasoning, if you know it?

[Cythieus]

That's really strange.  What's the reasoning, if you know it?

I haven't heard one, there's some Socialism in the Bible, not by name but its the same principal.

[The Overlord]

They literally associate liberals with socialists and somehow sharing with the group means you're totally evil.

I think this is making a strong statement on the level of avarice of the would-be accusers here.


…and I seem to recall something about avarice in the seven deadly sins.




Hypocrites.

[Cythieus]

Seven Deadly sins seem more overlooked in Protestant Religions. They get hammered into the Catholics and Orthodox from what I hear though.

[Morven]

An impression I've received, from the fundamentalists around here at least, is that their wealth is a reflection of the fact that they are blessed by God; a reward for being believers. 

If one believes that earthly riches are a reward for goodness and Godliness, I can see how one might view socialism as being a forcible redistribution of God's bounty from the Godly to the unbelievers and sinners who God punishes by making them poor.

[Jude]

An impression I've received, from the fundamentalists around here at least, is that their wealth is a reflection of the fact that they are blessed by God; a reward for being believers. 

If one believes that earthly riches are a reward for goodness and Godliness, I can see how one might view socialism as being a forcible redistribution of God's bounty from the Godly to the unbelievers and sinners who God punishes by making them poor.

You're describing the protestant work ethic that's the centerpiece of Calvinism.  I wasn't aware people still believed that; I thought it was as archaic as the concept of predestination and the denial of free-will.

[Morven]

You're describing the protestant work ethic that's the centerpiece of Calvinism.  I wasn't aware people still believed that; I thought it was as archaic as the concept of predestination and the denial of free-will.

This is my reading of the ones I've known; whether it's official doctrine or not of any church in the area, I have no idea.  It does follow on from the notion that God provides to the faithful, though.

[Cythieus]

People still believe that. Pastor John Hagee in San Antonio, Texas said that and that the people who died in Katrina did so because of their sinning. He also said some stuff about all music that was not Christian music coming from the Devil because the Devil was a muse.

[Morven]

People still believe that. Pastor John Hagee in San Antonio, Texas said that and that the people who died in Katrina did so because of their sinning. He also said some stuff about all music that was not Christian music coming from the Devil because the Devil was a muse.

Do Christians elsewhere in the world behave like this?  I'm pretty sure they don't in the UK, and I haven't heard of it in Europe.  There are Calvinists in Europe, but they don't behave as smugly, or as vocally sure about God's judgment.  Or not that I've seen.

[Cythieus]

Well because Conservationism isn't intertwined with Christianity so much there. I have a good British friend and a good Romanian one and both of them are Christians and they're totally sensible and seem to think we're odd over here for how we behave with religion AND politics.

[HairyHeretic]

An impression I've received, from the fundamentalists around here at least, is that their wealth is a reflection of the fact that they are blessed by God; a reward for being believers. 

Prosperity doctrine or prosperity gospel, something like that ... it seems to be an American phenomenon. Some of the Christians I've discussed it with elsewhere really don't like the idea of it.

[Cythieus]

Prosperity doctrine or prosperity gospel, something like that ... it seems to be an American phenomenon. Some of the Christians I've discussed it with elsewhere really don't like the idea of it.

It's contrary to some of the teachings in the Bible. Book of Job?

[HairyHeretic]

I don't recall, I'm afraid.

[Cythieus]

I don't recall, I'm afraid.

Basically in Job all of Job's possessions and things are taken away to prove that he will still love God despite losing all of his possessions. Then there is the part in the New Testament where Christ says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Lilias]

Seven Deadly sins seem more overlooked in Protestant Religions. They get hammered into the Catholics and Orthodox from what I hear though.

Actually, no. In Orthodox theology there's no distinction between venial and mortal sin.

The prosperity angle is particular to sects with roots to 17th-century Puritanism, together with emphasis on the OT. They literally see their congregation as God's chosen people. Call them Judaisers and watch them blow their tops (I have, on several occasions).

[Cythieus]

Actually, no. In Orthodox theology there's no distinction between venial and mortal sin.

The prosperity angle is particular to sects with roots to 17th-century Puritanism, together with emphasis on the OT. They literally see their congregation as God's chosen people. Call them Judaisers and watch them blow their tops (I have, on several occasions).

The ones in America seem to, calling them Capital Sins: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8049

[Lilias]

Sounds like a RC influence to me. I wasn't taught anything like that while growing up in Greece (the concept was that repentance and the sacrament of confession are the only way to forgiveness of any sin, only more serious ones make it harder for someone to admit them and go through the process), and I can't find any similar reference to any of the more academic resources I use now.

[Cythieus]

Sounds like a RC influence to me. I wasn't taught anything like that while growing up in Greece (the concept was that repentance and the sacrament of confession are the only way to forgiveness of any sin, only more serious ones make it harder for someone to admit them and go through the process), and I can't find any similar reference to any of the more academic resources I use now.

When a Church crosses a border or sea sometimes they bleed into each other their traditions and the like. I can go to Catholic Churches which seem more like Baptist ones in some ways than most. (they even say the extra part of the Our Father).

[Avi]

Basically in Job all of Job's possessions and things are taken away to prove that he will still love God despite losing all of his possessions. Then there is the part in the New Testament where Christ says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The way that I've heard the whole prosperity thing taught was this:  It's foolish and wrong to actively and greedily pursue objects, money, etc. just for the sake of having them.  However, as a believer, Christians believe that God will provide for them what they need, as long as they continue to work hard and be faithful to His Word.

At least, that's what most reasonable Christians I know take it to mean.

Back to the topic at hand, though.  Interpretation of the Bible has been going on since before it was even compiled into a single volume.  The problem is when people actively change what is written in the Bible in order to fit their worldview.  To me, if the Bible is the Word of God, which I believe it is, it's wrong to change it, since you're putting words into his mouth or taking them away.

You can interpret the words however you wish, just don't change the words themselves.

[kylie]

Prosperity doctrine or prosperity gospel, something like that ... it seems to be an American phenomenon. Some of the Christians I've discussed it with elsewhere really don't like the idea of it.

Weber wrote that historically, capitalism and Protestantism grew together in Europe; Protestantism provided a moral imperative in those places where capitalism succeeded.  Marx was also very concerned that religion was serving to distract everyone away from attaining class consciousness. 

     Perhaps the European association between "heavenly rewards" and Earthly prosperity is not so strong now as it once was in Europe.  I have pretty limited experience with Europe to go by.  When I passed through North and Central Europe some years ago, I had the impression there was a general faith in civil order and quite bureaucratic (sometimes rather smug) bustle and technical efficiency.  I did feel like quite a few service people looked down on me a bit as a stingy, cautious ("what am I buying exactly") and simply dressed budget traveler. 

     But I would also agree, there is definitely plenty of "heavenly entitlement or moral uprightness should equal earthly prosperity" in American rightist philosophy. 

[Chea]

These people literally hate liberalism. I have seen Christian morning shows call liberalism direct road to Hell. And its not even because of things like gays and other things you would think. They literally associate liberals with socialists and somehow sharing with the group means you're totally evil.

You're totally right, if ya'll look at any of Conservapedia's articles on Socialism, Atheism, Homosexuality, and Liberalism you'll see that they closely associate the three and say they're doing " the Devil's work".

[OldSchoolGamer]

Conservapedia=propaganda.

[Serephino]

No…let’s get that straight. YOU may be god’s ‘bitch’…not I.


I didn’t ask for this shit…I didn’t ask to be created and get dumped on this rock with you glorified monkeys and your trivial crap. But now that I’m here, I want some damned answers.

I don’t fear god, if god wants to face me down go for it. I’ll tell him straight up I want answers.

He wants my acknowledgment? What the hell do I care about how many levels up god may or may not be?

Through one cause or another, natural, god-given, or pure accident, I am cosmic material sprung up and evolved to the point that I can ask questions.

If a creator is so base and twisted that he wants to condemn me for the very thing he gave me the aptitude for, then I say bring that shit on. Don’t you dare send me to your opposite number…I’ll gladly work for him.

You know what... I'm sick and tired of all this shit.  I'm sick and tired of being belittled.  I'm sick and tired of being called stupid.  I was having a good day until I came on here and read this.  So I just have one thing to say


FUCK YOU

[Valerian]

Right, that does it.  This thread is no longer open for business.