Discussions
Is the Bible too "Liberal"?
Posted by Agit8r • 10/05/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Bible, conservative bias, foxnewsifying the scriptures
Someone just Dugg this. One of the WTF! things, for instance:
'...Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] 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"...'
blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html
User Comments
-
Admittedly, the Bible does come across as pretty "Liberal"... and "interepreting" the bible according to political motives has certainly happened before (see also King James)
-
I've never heard of this organization that the article speaks of. They're probably with the tin-foil hat crowd.
"Comrade" is only a liberal term to the ears of a communist or anticommunist. Otherwise, it refers to any relationship of Storge (love of country, community, organization or purpose), from a sports team to God's kingdom. I can see how that term might be too masculine for some people, as Storge is the form of love most associated with masculinity, but it is certainly not too "liberal."
I've talked about this many times, and we had a discussion about this in another thread:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/jesus-christ-was-a-socialist
The problem is not that Christ did not advocate Peace, Charity, and Love, it is that Liberals are sufficiently SELF-DILUTED to think they do.
There is nothing loving about government violence, stripping people of their freedoms, destroying all society and anyone you don't like, and not considering that anyone might ever disagree with you for a good reason.
There is nothing peaceful about forcing America to not be American and then creating Societal Wars and Tax Assasinations on those you don't like. And if you're going to bring up foreign wars, may I remind you that Wilson, LBJ, Clinton, and, now we find out, Obama are just about as warlike as Bush was, while Reagan prevented an inevitable war that would've been far more catastrophic then Iraq.
And there is nothing Charitable about making it impossible for the poor to afford food (Ethanol Subsidies), shelter (Zoning Laws), and Transportation (Fuel Efficiency Standards) and then giving them a lot bit of somebody else's money to make up a tiny part of the difference. The is nothing Christian about these actions either.
But then again, how many Christians are there really anyways? And HOW ON EARTH do you expect the fleshiest, most machiavellian and hateful organization on the planet (government) to advance ways of the Spirit and Love?-
The Gospel can be summed up in one word: "Grace"
sound like conservatism to you? -
Don't sound like liberalism either. Liberalism is forced conformity and busy bodying in peoples lives and destroying people.
In any case, grace is individual. When grace is forced, it's theft, and if grace was all the gospel was about, it would be shorter.
As Christ himself put it, "Saving whomever I like..." The only guarantee you have is the word on the honor of God, and when Christ believed Ananias had went too far (Acts 5), he called the bill. Nor did he believe the Pharisees would be saved ("For I tell you, unless your righteousness is greater then the scribes and the pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (All quotes NKJV) -
i was thinking in terms of social liberalism here, rather than economic. As this reinterpretation seemed to be focussed on social conservatism/paternalism
-
Oh yeah, that's different. The bible is very libertarian - social conservatism is far more a product of the Ancient Rome that was feeding Christians to lions then the Old Christian Church.
The bible can also be very pro-millitary too, although on the flip side I can see biblical justification for consumer protection, labor safety, left-populist type regulation as matter of public health (books of deuteronomy and leviticus are sometimes referred to as the "books of public works.") -
And tribal barbarism...
-
That's situational. Although, you must admit, the threat of nuclear war did do an awfully good job keeping the US and USSR civilized.
-
Really?
Seems like conservatives might note "free love"
Liberals might note "Bombingham" -
I meant towards each other!
Still, madcap sexual frothiness in Upstate New York is a major improvement to blowing apart each others people. Sexual morality is certainly wise, and you don't truly know or love Christ until you are, but of all the terrible things people do, it's pretty low on the totem pole. -
I missunderstood what you meant by "civilized"
"Bombingham" (racial terrorism) fails on both counts -
I don't actually know what "Bombingham" is.
-
Looked up Bombingham. It's referring to the 1963 church bombings in Birmingham, Alabama. Unfortunately, the ability of the USSR to nuke the United States can't help that. Prevented us from doing it in Volgograd (better known as Stalingrad) and Vladivostok, however.
-
-
Actually what I posted is not entirely true. While it may be the same 5 people as before, I took another look at the "Recent Viewers" and some of them did look again.
-
No. The Beble is perfect. It is everything we need to live. Great question.-
"Beble" LOL.
Well I'm not sure if it's EVERYTHING we need to live, but it is certainly the only irreplaceable book of faith, and the only book that every Christian MUST read at least the most important sections of, and preferably read all of eventually, to understand God's kingdom.
-
-
I wonder if they replace "mandrake" with "abortive"
74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:xANnQxvHxoEJ:www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/... -
Walk in love
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
