US Conservatives to purge the Holy Bible of Liberal Bias, will stress Free Markets.

Remove all ads!

The Conservative Bible Project is eventually about to rid the Bible from the godless and pernicious liberal content that managed to sneak its way into it during the last two millennia. About time!

We should all be grateful for their valiant efforts.

 

Wow....

When does reinterpretation become stamping your own spin on it? I mean, there are probably a hundred million different translations and interpretations of the Bible, and I for one would say, in this case, they are seeing what they want to see. They want the Bible to say such and such a thing, and so they will rewrite it. The problem with this is that, how much of it is the divine word of God, and how much of it is just what they want to hear?

Its also amazing how they... um feel persecuted by the liberals.

 

I'm blown away. I'm feeling this mix of amusement, incredulity, and...uh, fear.

I had a look at some of those articles, too. The "Open-mindedness" one leaves me speechless. I have no speech.

 

What they really want is this:

John C. Calhoun

That's it in a nutshell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

 

My first thought was "why is this in AoLS?" It is a religious undertaking, not political. The republican party has not funded this in any way I can tell (nor has the democratic, green, libertarian, or even the silly party).

Second thought -- too late. The Mormons did this years ago.

 

There are a million* or so different translations of the Bible out there. It has been translated, re-interpreted, edited and distorted by different folks for centuries. There was one version I recall reading about that excised all references to supernatural miracles. This is nothing new.

I'll ignore the Mormon jab.

*please note the hyperbole.

 

Ragusa, please think a little more about how you word these things. Claiming that the 'conservatives' are doing this is like claiming the 'liberals' made the Green Bible, or, for that matter, Greenpeace.

"US Conservatives" are not doing this. A bunch of wackos who've branded themselves as 'conservative' without anyone else's consent are doing this.

And for the record, that's what these people are: wackos. If you want to really know 100% what the Bible says, study ancient Greek and Hebrew. There are plenty of biblical commentaries from noted experts that break down the language very nicely, or you could just go to BlueLetterBible.org for singular references.

 

My dense friend ... first thanks for neg repping me anonymously over this and second, this is from 'conservapedia'. It is by no means a stretch to make a connection between conservatives and this particular project, even more so taking into account the project's expressed emphasis on countering 'liberal bias'.

Yes it is a wacky project - by US conservatives, and that's deserving of a headline that describes what this is about.

While it is not THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES in their entirety doing this (that's my special disclaimer for the record only for NOG ), it's still a segment of them, and that is enough for the headline to be accurate. When you prefer to be whiny about this, too bad for you.

And just for the record, I don't think you're in on that project.

 

LKD:

And as a plug... Rags, just subscribe -- you can see who neg reps you. I know I can.

 

So if we are understanding you right, they are NOT conservatives? The confusion may be because these people are claiming to be conservatives, and thusly are taking content out of the Bible that they don't agree with because it is "liberal." I still don't understand why you are attacking Ragusa over their claim to be conservatives. Sounds to me like your problem is with those "imposters," rather than Rags.

 

They are Americans, they are Conservatives, so fair enough. I'd like to believe that even the most rabidly loonie Liberal alive would have the brainpower to see that not all conservatives are involved with this project.

As I said before, though, go into any bookstore and you'll see lots of translations, many of which are for political or social purposes and have been seen through selective lenses.

 

Why would ANYONE with any sense beleive that (regardless of politics)? I really see no reason to talk down to us. Or is this just some sort of deflection?

 

You're welcome. And, for the record, all my repping is anonymous, whether positive or negative. I feel it's a crucial part of the system.

So now this guy is the US conservative movement?

So I suppose Muslims are violent, intollerant, and sexist? I guess blacks are lazy leeches? Oh, and let's not get into the greedy, corporate-funded Americans and the dull, humorless Canadians. When you write a statement like "Group X does this", it is automatically assumed by everyone reading that you are claiming that, at least, the vast majority of that group is involved. When 4 guys who belong to a fringe-element of a group do something, you should say those 4 guys, or maybe their fringe element does it, not the entire group. That's basic integrity in your writing, Ragusa, not me whining.

My problem is with both and, as clarified above, my problem with Rags is his generalization of this to the entire party. Even if he had said "a few US conservatives", it would have been better. He didn't.

 

I also am offended by yet another Ragusa thread/post. NOG is correct that you seem to be trying to use some whackos to paint conservatives/Republicans with a very broad brush in an attempt to marginalize them.

Using the same logic since hippies are considered to be liberal should I start a thread that liberals/Democrats smell bad?

 

Again... why is this thread in AoLS? It was not a political article and not a political topic (until Rags put it here instead of AoDA). By putting the thread here, Ragusa chose to make this a political statement and attack conservatives -- which, IMO is why there has been such an "outpouring of emotion" from the conservatives on the boards ... unless he really meant for it to go in AoDA but had a Freudian slip ...

NOG -- repping is not really anonymous, especially not to members. Only a few actually use negatives (at least in my experience). Most people simply either argue the point or ignore it when they disagree.

 

That sounds like they are describing self-proclaimed conservatives to me. I would say your own link, NOG, supports completely why Ragusa would place that in AoLS. Because the people who are crafting the project are, obviously, making a political statement, more than a biblical one, AND they are self-proclaimed conservatives.

I believe that you are over-stating your case and putting words into Regusa's intentions that are not there. YOU are the one with no integrity at this point. Ragusa has many times on this board said that he admires some conservatives, particularly Bush I. And he has gone out of his way to prove that conservatives like Frum and Brooks are more representative of real conservatives than the hacks who have taken over the conservative movement, as he illustrated in his post. So, IMO, you are misrepresnting Ragusa's views, NOG.

In fact, he has shown WAY more respect for conservatives than most of you have shown towards liberals in all the years that I've been posting here. Further, to hear TGS complaining that he is "offended" is nothing more than bluster and posturing and he knows it. The thing for me is that I can put politics aside and not dislike anyone on the boards regardless of which side of the political specturm they are on. Despite all his whining, TGS is one of my favorite people on the boards, and I would never intentionally post anything to offend him because I like him and respect him. But you guys are still whining.

TGS, you've never known a hippie in your life, let alone smelled one. Unless you are far older than the rest of us.

 

Meh, humor my fantasies. As for negative repping, I rep not for agreement or disagreement, but for quality of the post (i.e. things like logic, math skills, references to obscure literature, inappropriate use of whatevers). In this case, I negative repped Ragusa not because he offended me, but because he presented a small minority fringe as representative of a vast group of people. I'd have done the same if he'd posted US Liberals engage in terrorism on the high seas.

I'll agree that there is a clear political implication to this topic, and so it may well belong in AoLS and not AoDA, but I still feel Ragusa misrepresented things with his title and then made no sizable effort to correct things with his post.

Ragusa has, at times, defended certain conservatives, yes. He has also, at times, attacked conservatives as a whole. Sometimes for positions that a sizable majority of conservatives hold (and thus a legitimate attack) and sometimes not.

If you and Ragusa honestly consider US Liberals engage in terrorism on the high seas to be a legitimate thread, and not at all inflamatory or misrepresentative, then I think we just completely disagree on the responsabilities of someone posting on here. To me, both this topic and that are blatantly misrepresenting a large movement by tieing it to an extremist fringe element.


EDIT:
Just out of curiosity, where does the free market come into this? The title includes "will stress free market", but I don't see it talked about anywhere in the post, and I honestly don't see how this would stress the free market. Was it a joke, or am I missing something?

 

NOG - This is from the link:

 

NOG, what would you have preferred the headline to be? Nutty Fringe Elements Rewrite the Bible with their own twist? People who claim to be conservative but really arent reinterpret the Bible?

I'm not sure how he could have put it so that it describes the content yet doesnt offend you. Are they conservatives? Sure, thats what they say they are, should we tell them they are lying and/or misinformed? Do they speak for all conservatives? No, of course not. When you see a headline along the lines of "Women Campaign Against Abuse" do you think that means every single woman was campaigning? Again, no of course not (although I would hope that all women and men would want to end abuse against women and children, but thats another story).

Frankly I think you're being a little sensitive over this.