GameBanshee Forums

Here's a good bit from the Conservapedia re-bibling folk:

]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.

Rather amazing, isn't it? I like the logic of the above, which amounts to, "We know it didn't happen this way, because we know it didn't happen this way." Nothing says hamster-on-a-track like circular arguments. And let's not even get into the fact that some of the same people who keep screaming about the need for biblical literalism now believe the bible must be rewritten...

Everybody always says they live in interesting times. But our times? Really, really interesting.

fable wrote:Here's a good bit from the Conservapedia re-bibling folk:

]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.

Rather amazing, isn't it? I like the logic of the above, which amounts to, "We know it didn't happen this way, because we know it didn't happen this way." Nothing says hamster-on-a-track like circular arguments. And let's not even get into the fact that some of the same people who keep screaming about the need for biblical literalism now believe the bible must be rewritten...

Everybody always says they live in interesting times. But our times? Really, really interesting.

Just goes to show just how little "fundamentalism" has to do with following teachings to the letter. Seems to me that at least in modern times it has more to do with cherry picking elements that you agree with and saying that those who speak to the contrary are against the lord's will. Blech

Seems to me that at least in modern times it has more to do with cherry picking elements that you agree with and saying that those who speak to the contrary are against the lord's will.

It's always been that way sadly. Even when the bible was originally put together nigh on 2,000 years ago they were cherry picking.

galraen wrote:It's always been that way sadly. Even when the bible was originally put together nigh on 2,000 years ago they were cherry picking.

Well to be fair the old testament part was likely put together largely through the oral tradition. Heaven only knows what was lost in the shuffle, either deliberately or accidentally.

once religion became a defining focus of power it was inevitable some jerks were going to start tampering with it.

I will be VERY curious to see how much this revised Bible (assuming it even happens) sells outside bible belt USA. I am also looking forward to reviews os Sarah Palin's upcoming book. Somehow I think they will be equally received both inside and outside conservative USA. Liberals being derisive and neocons being approving.

jklinders wrote:I will be VERY curious to see how much this revised Bible (assuming it even happens) sells outside bible belt USA. I am also looking forward to reviews os Sarah Palin's upcoming book. Somehow I think they will be equally received both inside and outside conservative USA. Liberals being derisive and neocons being approving.

Better to say, sensible people of any political persuasion being derisive, neocons and their shills being approving. It's fair enough, because Palin isn't derided by progressives because she's conservative. She's derided because 1) she's ignorant, and makes up figures; 2) she's deceptive, and keeps to the same set of lies after being repeatedly corrected; 3) she's hypocritical, having been proven many times to do the opposite of what she preaches; 4) she uses emotional appeals aimed at provoking hatred against minorities.

By contrast, William F. Buckley provoked anger and debate for progressives, but not usually derision, because he employed ideas.

It's always been that way sadly. Even when the bible was originally put together nigh on 2,000 years ago they were cherry picking.

Not to play the devil's advocate, but they had to: they wanted an orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) religion, one that was clearly defined. Unlike, say, gnosticism, which broadly embraced many faiths that were quite different. When one particular Christian bishop, Valentinus, early on tried to argue in favor of gnosticism as part of Christianity, he ended up being kicked out. I can understand the need to set boundaries if you want to provide a theological, administrative, and dogmatic framework to your faith, but now, in the 21st century, I can't find anything other than a political urge behind the desire by some conservatives to rewrite the bible.

In fact, why don't they do what other extremely rightwing hack religious leaders do? Just select what they want to keep, and forget the rest. Ignore the "forgive," "cast stones," and "do unto other" parts, and focus on Paul and especially the OT in justifying any bigotry or stupidity one wants. It's an old tune, that sells well around the world.

I stand rightly corrected fable thank you.

fable wrote: 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.

How do they know this "simple fact"? Is there a dialogue there? "Father, they don't know what they're doing! Shut up, Jesus, we know very well what we're doing!"

And the "most authentic" is good, too. Apart from the fact that it's hard to be authentic, more authentic and most authentic, it's a nice smooth maniplulation, putting "earliest" next to "most authentic" and quickly passing on to other matters so that the reader has no time to doubt it.

fable wrote:
Everybody always says they live in interesting times. But our times? Really, really interesting.

Erm... I'm not too confident of my ground here, but... isn't "May you live in interesting times" and old Chinese (or maybe some other nation) curse? Cos, anyway, personally, I'd rather NOT be living in 'interesting times'!

Fljotsdale wrote:Erm... I'm not too confident of my ground here, but... isn't "May you live in interesting times" and old Chinese (or maybe some other nation) curse? Cos, anyway, personally, I'd rather NOT be living in 'interesting times'!

Not sure if it originates from the real world, but that phrase definitely appears in a few of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.

galraen wrote:Not sure if it originates from the real world, but that phrase definitely appears in a few of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.

So it does! I'd forgotten that... wasn't there a book of his called "Interesting Times"? I think it might have been a Granny Weatherwax book, though it's been an age since I read it, so I could be wrong.

Fljotsdale wrote:So it does! I'd forgotten that... wasn't there a book of his called "Interesting Times"? I think it might have been a Granny Weatherwax book, though it's been an age since I read it, so I could be wrong.

Yes there is, but it's a Rincewind book, although it wouldn't surprise me if Granny was in there somewhere, her and CMOT Dibbler are two of the best, and most pervasive, characters in the Discworld novels.

It's frequently called "an ancient Chinese curse," but there are no records of it in Chinese literature. There is a 1950s science fiction story called U Turn by Eric Frank Russell, and it states:

"For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: 'May you live in interesting times!' It isn't a curse any more. It's a blessing."

I've no idea if Russell invented it or not, but I suspect that's the case. Russell and others of his generation in the fantasy/sci-fi genre liked to invent pseudo-facts and stick them in stories, as a grin to one another.

Back to rewriting the bible. Any other guesses as to what passages might be revised for greater accuracy in the Randian universe where Supply Side Jesus lives?

fable wrote:
Back to rewriting the bible. Any other guesses as to what passages might be revised for greater accuracy in the Randian universe where Supply Side Jesus lives?

Feel free to knuckle rap me for this one. How about the commandment against coveting of possessions wives and a type of livestock that the censor would not allow me to type. Seems they may use that one for their social opposition to homosexuality.:mischief:

Beyond stupid I know but it suits my sense of irony. Besides coveting thy neighbors possessions could imply pinko commie tendencies.

I'm in a bit of a rush right now, more to come later.

Abel's last words are "Noooo! If only I'd had a gun I could have prevented this!"

Jesus has a respectable short haircut and doesn't wear that stupid dress thing like some sissy ***.

Mary Magdalene has a high-profile taxpayer funded affair with Pilate.

Saint Peter goes quail hunting with some friends and accidentally crossbows a lawyer in the face - it's okay though, all is forgiven.

Judas gets his punishment in Hell commuted because, in the words of Jesus, "My decision to commute his Hell sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Iscariot. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the Christian community is forever damaged."

Jesus refuses to do that trick with the fishes and bread 'cos it's akin to government bailouts, encourages welfare dependency instead of self-sufficiency and enterprise, and artificially affects supply and demand. Instead, after the fisherman/woman/boy fairly offers to sell him the food at fair market value (i.e. heavily inflated as demand far outstrips supply), he buys the fish and bread, eats them himself, and tells the lazy crowd to stop sitting around gawking at him and to go out and get a real job.

Seriously, I think a big deal will be made of the revised "Thou shalt not kill" into "Thou shalt not murder" - 'cos legally endorsed killing is fine, and Jesus would totally endorse the death penalty. It'll also be interesting to see what if anything is made about the Israel/Palestine situation.