Hot damn! Something political on this blog I can agree with!

If you want to see just what the socially regressive theocrats can come up with then behold! The American Patriot’s Bible! If you’re too scared to look and just want the Cliff’s Notes, it’s the King James version of the Bible interlaced with images of American soldiers in uniform, battleships and stories of America’s founding. Because I guess they just all go together.

You’ve got to kinda on some level admire the social regressives. They so earnestly cling to their personal beliefs they’re willing to rework that which they claim is their foundation (that being the Bible) to fit their own preconceived notions. They think it’s right so clearly god must think that way, too. The level of gall it take to live like that astonishes me and the fact they all seem either totally comfortable with it or are so tightly wrapped in their illusions that they’re oblivious to it is something that takes a level of hubris I wouldn’t think a normal human being capable of. I’m not even sure hubris is the right word to describe it. It’s deplorable and destructive but somewhere deep down I stand in a little bit of awe of it.

Honestly I’m really surprised to learn they haven’t come up with their own version of the Bible yet already. In spite of the fact I’m a non-believer I was recently persuaded to read the entire Bible cover-to-cover. I made it all the way through and was left wondering if maybe the religious right was using a different book than the one I read thanks to the number of engrained positions they hold that are based on things that either aren’t in the Bible or are little more than footnotes, to say nothing of the major things they omit. If they’re able to play semantical Twister with the currently available versions to pull justification for their backward beliefs out then I cringe at what they’ll do when the new Gospels explicitly prohibit abortion and gay marriage by name.

I’m really very curious as to what Big U thinks of this. Hell, I might even be interested to know what F.Morris (hopefully that’ll dodge the spam filter) thinks of this.

I’m also curious how this interacts with the folks who think that the King James translation into English was divinely inspired and constitutes additional revelation.

On the other hand, I’m still not real clear on how “divinity” differs from magic, so I doubt that any answers to that last one will mean anything to me.

What is truly interesting to me is this:

A great deal of the right claims a religious grounding while actually ignoring so much of the Bible. They really have no Biblical interest but try to claim some. And a section of those on the right who actually do have a Biblical faith often ignore some passages and emphasize others.

Also, the looney part of the left (and even the not-so-looney) are quick to pick and choose little pieces of the Bible to support their position in arguments while at the same time arguing that the Bible and Christianity should have nothing to do with politics.

Extremes on both sides are out of touch with reality and will push whatever ideas they feel they can while trying to constantly claim the moral high ground. These guys that are doing this project are out to lunch but I guess in a free country that’s their right. But for anyone to suggest this stupidity is done solely by those on the religious right indicates to me that they are truly out to lunch when it comes to reality.

*sits back and awaits the flaming*

support their position in arguments while at the same time arguing that the Bible and Christianity should have nothing to do with politics

For you, that’s an all-too-typical distortion. Believers and non-believers alike, regardless of political persuasion, can regard the Bible as a source of moral teaching; the difference is that for the latter, there is an emphasis on the word “a.” Using such a source to support an argument is no different from quoting your favorite philosopher.

The objection has not been to the involvement in politics, in ongoing public discussions and disputes about issues of public importance, but in policy, and there clearly is a difference. That is, the objection is to the sometimes implicit but sometimes explicit notion that some policy must be or must not be pursued because “the Bible says so,” an argument that says in effect “You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with GOD!” Specifically, with the Judeo-Christian God.

Such an argument declares that law and policy not only must be based on religious belief, but on a particular religious belief. It becomes a Judeo-Christian equivalent of Sharia law. And that sort of argument is almost if not exclusively a property of the right.

You want to justify your “both sides are the same” bogus equivalency? You find me some project where avowed liberals are literally trying to re-write the Bible to fit their socio-economic convictions. (And no, the Jesus Seminar doesn’t come even vaguely close to meeting that demand.)
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

Let me get this right. You are saying the left-wingers leading the Jesus Seminar don’t come close to the right-wingers behind Conservapedia? How does that make sense?

And in reality, the goals of several groups to remove gender specific wording from the Bible is just one clear attempt by liberals to re-write the Bible to fit their socio-econonmic convictions.

BU:

Actually, I simply didn’t understand most of what you wrote. But about this:

Also, the looney part of the left (and even the not-so-looney) are quick to pick and choose little pieces of the Bible to support their position in arguments while at the same time arguing that the Bible and Christianity should have nothing to do with politics.

First, there’s nothing wrong with thinking that the Bible supports your position, or even that it motivates political activism, and also that it shouldn’t be a justification for law or politics.

But if you mean there are liberals who cite the Bible as justification for political action and also argue that religion should be kept out of politics, I think that’s just wrong, in largest part at least. There have been religious liberals who cite religion as a basis for changes in the law (MLK Jr., the Quakers), and there have been many more non-religious liberals who argue for changes on non-religious grounds and think political arguments grounded in religion are illegitimate. The two groups generally don’t overlap, even though they often wind up working on the same issues.
KTK´s last blog ..Science: 1, Nuts: 0

KTK wrote: “But if you mean there are liberals who cite the Bible as justification for political action and also argue that religion should be kept out of politics, I think that’s just wrong, in largest part at least.”

There is also a distinct difference between using a general understanding of the Bible to justify a moral imperative ie. the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the “war” on poverty etc and trying to impose one’s particular, narrow, sectarian point of view on the rest of the body politic. One can conceivably find a Biblical justification for supporting civil rights while understanding a display of Moses’ tablets of the Commandments in a secular courtroom is wildly inappropriate. Maybe it’s just that the former is inclusive, and the latter exclusive, and that may be the key difference in how the left uses religious/moral grounds, and how the right does.

Posts like these almost make you wish Fred were still around…”almost” being the operative word here.

How does that make sense?

1. The people involved with the Jesus seminar are Biblical scholars, not political ideologues.

2. There is no evidence that the Jesus Seminar, which is about trying to locate the historical Jesus in scripture, is trying to impose any sort of ideological litmus test on the results.

That makes it a dramatically different undertaking than what Conservapedia is about.

remove gender specific wording … just one clear attempt by liberals to re-write the Bible

Major fail. Such an effort would not involve changing the meaning of the text and is therefore again unlike what Conservapedia is attempting. (I assume you realize that when the Bible says something like “Mankind” it means everyone, right? So changing that to something like “Humankind” wouldn’t change the meaning, would it?)
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

KTK, I’m not certain, but I always got the sense that the Quakers and MLK used their religion differently on their politics. MLK seemed to talk like he thought Christianity was the basis of right action and that because it was pro-underdog and pro-mercy (at least he thought his Christianity was), then Christian America should agree with his policies. On the other hand, it’s always seemed like Quakers have taken policy positions (e.g. anti-war) because of their religion, refused to violate their own principles because they thought they were right, but took their political freedom to support those policies in public as a civil right, not as a god-given one. *Shrug.* Maybe I’m just projecting because I like Quakers.

BU,

I’ve never heard of the Jesus Seminar before, so I read a little about it. I think you’ve dismissed a rather important difference between them and Conservapedia’s project here: The Jesus Seminar seemed to be producing a set of commentary about the body of manuscripts that make up Christian canon, while the Conservapedia is claiming that they’re producing a document that (more) accurately reflects the current content of that canon. The former is claiming the tentative and debatable truth of historicity, but the latter is claiming the truth of improved fidelity to that which is already viewed as being more truth than even tangible facts. Isn’t that a rather glaring difference is degree if not in kind?

As for gender-neutral translations, it’s worth noting that some of the currently popular translations introduced gender in many places where there wasn’t any in the original. Also, in the 400 years since the King James version (for example), the meaning of words like “he” and “man” has changed from sometimes or even often denoting all humans (though rarely connoting it) to never connoting such and rarely even denoting it. That fact suggests that new translation is necessary, even if you like the quality of the previous one.

Dan M. – the clear goal of the Jesus Seminar was to remove the idea that Jesus Christ was divine. If you agree with the Jesus Seminar group, you basically destroy the majority of the New Testament. Here is a link to a site that looks at the Jesus Seminar teachings and leaders with a non-biased view. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html

I have no problem saying the the people at Conservapedia are extreme and out of touch with reality. I think what they are trying to do is completely wrong and actually goes in violation of what is actually stated in Scripture.

LarryE – the Jesus Seminar is COMPLETELY about creating an ideological litmus test. They are focused on destroying the idea that the Christ of Christianity was divine. If you remove that, then you completely remove the basis of Christianity. That, to me, is far more significant than trying to hold onto gender specific wording. The majority of the contributors to the Jesus seminar are VERY liberal in their perspectives which tends to tie to the left on the political spectrum.

Dan -

I think your understanding of MLK is off in a perhaps-subtle but important way.

I don’t think he ever preached (or thought) that Christianity was the basis of “right action” but rather that it provided a foundation for “right action.” The difference is not only that by definition the latter allows for other belief systems to do the same but also that by virtue of that very point you can’t say “the law must be this way because the Bible says so” (because that would undermine the allowance for other beliefs).

What he did was use the Bible – or, more accurately, the teachings of the Bible – as a common reference point with his audience in making a moral argument. Consider, for example, that in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, he made only two references to the Bible and neither of those was overt: They were quotations. (One was the image of justice “rolling down like the waters” and the other was a future when the “rough places” would be “made plain” and “the glory of God will be revealed.”) He made more references to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence – again, a common social reference point.

Which, again, is quite different from the right, which, as I said earlier, has almost if not actually exclusive possession of the “you must because the Bible – that is, God – says so” argument.
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

BU -

the Jesus Seminar is COMPLETELY about creating an ideological litmus test.

That is utter nonsense. It is the fearful, knee-jerk reaction of someone so intimidated by the thought of any change at all that even the possibility of changing some of the words in a way that does not change the meaning (i.e., the “gender-neutral” business) becomes some kind of plot to force a certain set of beliefs onto the Bible – or, more exactly, the particular understanding of what the Bible supposedly says which they have been taught. Is your faith really that weak?
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

BU,

I note that you have combined the following claims:

“[T]he people at Conservapedia are extreme and out of touch with reality.”

“[T]he left-wingers leading the Jesus Seminar [...] come close to the right-wingers behind Conservapedia[.]”

“[The Jesus Seminar] are focused on destroying the idea that the Christ of Christianity was divine.” (From the little I’ve read so far, this seems plausible at least.)

From these ideas together, I must conclude that you think that it is one must accept that Christ is “divine” in order to keep to reality. Again, folks keep telling me that “divine” is different than “magical”, but I have yet to be told how, so I’d really love to know how reality enforces an understanding of Christ as divine.

(Note, I’m not saying here that it’s unacceptable to believe that Christ was divine, but I certainly can’t see how you can claim that belief is based in reality.)

BU, your link is dead. Got another?

LarryE,

Thanks. I’ve never really listed to MLK beyond what always gets quoted, so I’ll certainly take your word for it. I still get a feeling that he had more of a *presumption* that his audience was Christian than most Quakers have, but that’s almost certainly true of his audience, so that’s fine.

Dan M. – here is the link again. I just copied off the address bar on my browser so hopefully it works http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html

IF one is to claim a belief in Christ, one MUST accept Christ’s claims that He was God. That would make Him divine. IF someone wants to say “He was a great guy but He wasn’t God”, then you have to acknowledge the idea that he intentionally lied to expand his following. If he is that type of liar and so self-motivated, how can you say he was a great guy? To me, that is where the disconnect shows up.

Larry E, first off, your suggestion that my response is knee-jerk shows more about your perspective of me than it does reality. Secondly, your comment shows absolutely no knowledge of what the Jesus Seminar proponents have been pushing as their agenda. So why are you even commenting?

As far as gender-specific wording, I would suggest translators look closely at the original text. If gender specific wording was used, then use it. If not, then don’t. If the original translators put in the word “son” when it could have just as easily been “children” then use children. I really don’t care.

However, if a person’s faith is so weak that they see the use of the word “mankind” as offensive when clearly there was no bias intended at the time of the authorship and that is the wording that was used, then they need to review their faith. I would say the same thing to the people at Conservapedia who are clearly out of touch with things, so it’s not like I’m taking a pro-right, anti-left approach.

As far as the “scholars” at the Jesus Seminar go, I would classify them as the Rush Limbaugh of scholars. Definitely some interesting ideas infused with a semblance of truth but then so twisted to meet their own predetermined set of ideas that they should lose credibility in the eyes of rational thinkers who are not carrying their own agendas.

BU -

your suggestion that my response is knee-jerk shows more about your perspective of me than it does reality

Do you ever engage in a debate without resorting to the “shows more about you” argument? It seems to be a standard with you.

I knew about the Jesus Seminar before their first work was released. I stand by my judgment: Your claim that the group has an “agenda” to deny the divinity of Jesus is hogwash. And I intend this to be the last time on this thread when I refer to the group. If you want to discuss the original topic, which was Conservapedia, fine. But this is turning into a thread hijacking.

If gender specific wording was used, then use it.

Do you mean gender-specific wording such as “Mankind” or gender-specific references, such as using “son” in referring to a male child? The latter refers to a fact and obviously should not be changed; the former refers merely to a contemporary style and can be changed to reflect current usage. Or do you also reject the supposed “agenda” involved in changing “thee” to “you?” (Sidebar: Changing “son” to “children” might well change the meaning; I suspect you actually meant “child.”)

Whether bias was meant at the time of authorship is irrelevant (although it’s worth noting that around the time of Jesus’ ministry, the word of women was given such little weight that their testimony in court was considered literally worthless, which gives some good notion of the overall attitude of the time towards women) – what matters is if there is bias in the continued use of certain terms as society has evolved.

I’d also note that a weak faith is revealed in a fear of change, not in the willingness to consider and embrace it as merited.

it’s not like I’m taking a pro-right, anti-left approach

Oh no, of course not. It’s just the “anytime the right gets criticized in a way that can’t be denied, claim ‘Oh, everybody does it!’” approach.

Quickly on another point:

IF one is to claim a belief in Christ, one MUST accept Christ’s claims that He was God.

Out of curiosity, where in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus say he is God? It seems to me that he goes out of his way to avoid – sometimes cagily – claiming that. He doesn’t specifically deny the term but neither does he specifically embrace it. (Something else worth noting parenthetically is that at the time of his ministry, “Messiah” did not have the later sense of “savior” or “redeemer” but referred to someone appointed by God to a special mission on Earth. That is, “Messiah” did not equate to “divine.”)

you have to acknowledge the idea that he intentionally lied

IF AND ONLY IF you also assert that the Bible – particularly the most historically questionable and troublesome Gospel, that of John – is an inerrant record of his ministry and teachings rather than including any later additions or beliefs as the view of Jesus taken by the early church evolved. But in that case you have circular reasoning. “We know Jesus is God because he said so and we know he did because the Bible says so and the Bible must be true because it is the inerrant word of God, which Jesus is.” A singularly unimpressive argument.
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

Well, considering you won’t accept the Bible as a legitimate reference for who Jesus said he was, there is not much point discussing this with you. However, here you go:
Matthew 27:43
Mark 14:61-62
Luke 22:66-70
And I know, you will come back with – that says he is the son, not actually God. Taking the New Testament in its full context, including the Gospels and the message is quite clear. Only when people approach it with an agenda (from the right or left) do things get twisted to present a specific perspective.

As far as thread-jacking, you brought up the Jesus Seminar, not me.

And if you were actually willing to pay attention, you would note that I have no use for the people at Conservapedia but at the same time I do not consider them to be an example of the overall “right” but rather a far-right fringe element. I would say the same on the left for the Jesus Seminar folks but they seem to be far more in line with positions of people on the left than those from Conservapedia are on the right.
At least KTK even acknowledged that the people at Conservapedia are extreme and not an example of the general group of right-wingers. Something you seem unwilling or unable to do.

BU –

You’re right in one thing: In the passive admission that the passages don’t actually say what you claim they do. Interesting that you’re the one who’s worried about the effects of translations while citing a passage in Mark where translators have chosen the word “Christ” even though it could equally have been “Messiah” – which, as I noted earlier (by coincidence) did not mean the same thing.

I also notice all three citations are to the same incident during his trial – which actually means it’s one reference, not three, and is not anything said during his ministry.

As for the “full context,” I’d remind you that there was wide and far-ranging discussion during the early years of the Church about doctrine and tradition. (Some of that is visible in Acts and in some of Paul’s epistles.) The idea of a “four Gospel canon” didn’t even arise until about 150 years after Jesus died, didn’t become generally accepted until the end of the 4th century CE, and in a technical sense didn’t become canonical – i.e., part of dogma – until the mid-1500s for some Christian churches and the mid-1600s for others.

More to the point, in that general agreement in the 4th century, the books chosen were done so because they reflected “the mind of the Church.” More bluntly, you don’t have a church founded on a bible, you’ve got a bible founded on a church – that is, the books of the Bible became canonical because they fit what the Church had come to preach and not the other way around.

Which means, to use your terms, the books of the NT were chosen because the Church had “an agenda.”

you brought up the Jesus Seminar, not me

I did – for the specific purpose of trying to keep the thread from veering off into attacks on the effort (which I agree is not fringe, it is a serious scholarly undertaking which you reject because it threatens your own preconceived notions), attacks undertaken as a way to avoid the subject of Conservapedia and its attempt to quite literally rewrite the Bible to fit its reactionary ideological agenda. Obviously I didn’t succeed, but that was the clear intention.

you seem unwilling or unable to do

That’s because when I see the birthers, the deathers, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Sean Hannity, James Inhofe, Michelle “Internment was a Good Thing” Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and the spectacle of GOP members of Congress forced to grovel with apologies for having challenged him, when I see people literally cheering when the US didn’t get the Olympics, I have a really hard time regarding Conservapedia as “fringe.” They are not fringe, they are merely the clowns who don’t choose their words and targets quite as carefully as their cohorts and so show, albeit unintentionally, the morally and logically corrupt nature of the entire enterprise.
LarryE´s last blog ..Getting hot under the collar

KTK, you have unintentionally ruined my day. Conservapedia was something I had never heard of before this blog entry. When you mentioned it I thought it was just a term you were using to generalize the right side of the blogosphere. Then today I heard it referenced elsewhere, figured it couldn’t be a coincidence and I’ve since filled in the gap in my knowledge that, yes, everything you said is accurate. It seemed too absurd to me for it to be real; there could be no way there could ever exist any group whose overt stated goal is to rewrite the Bible to expunge from it what they view as left wing influence. Any such effort would defy logic, tact and the boundaries of good taste and be eye-rolled out of existence.

*covers head and assumes fetal position*

Judd, now you know how every politically aware positive atheist feels every single day. Let’s go watch some Bill O’Reilly. Welcome to my world.