World Net Daily lambasts Conservative Bible Project

It’s weird to admit I am in almost complete agreement with Joseph Farah of World Net Daily over the issue of Conservapedia’s attempt to remove the “liberal bias” of the Bible. Their desire to remove Jesus’ supposed “softness” on crime, and disdain for money is particularly telling of their general philosophy. There are plenty of Christians who absolutely hate the whole “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” passage. Some people really do love money, and it’s quite clear in the New Testament that Jesus really isn’t a big fan of it.

Of course, Farah and I don’t see eye to eye about the relative worth of the King James Version, but I’d rather be stuck with that sadistic filth than a version that’s even less charitable. At least it’s good to know not everybody on the conservative side has totally lost their marbles. Maybe there is hope for these people after all…

Comments (20)

  • avatar

    Razzle

    That camel verse is probably an example of attempted subjugation of people. Convince people to stay poor, because poor people are generally easier to control. The fucking Bible stinks of this type of shit – obviously man made, obvious not fucking divine.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Also, Farah can shove the King James Bible up his ass. Go fuck yourself asshole, that book commands some of the worst evils ever.

  • avatar

    Scott

    Historically, it’s believed Jesus would have interacted with the Cynics, a philosophy originated by Diogenes of Sinope, where followers would live extremely ascetic lives. Its main idea was that man was an animal (Greek word for dog was roughly “Kynos”, then Latin “Cynis”, to modern-day “Cynic”, approximately), so he should abandon unnecessary material trappings that derailed him from virtuous pursuits – a similar idea to many monks in Western & Eastern religions. I rather like that minimalist idea, though when the Vatican & Televangelists tell you the same thing from their multi-million-dollar media empires, it loses some of its sincerity.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    When a leader tells you to give up your shit and don’t try to be rich, they are trying to oppress you, whether you realize it, or not and whether they are doing it on purpose or not.

  • avatar

    LB

    Doesn’t really matter because it’s a big pile of crap.

  • avatar

    Scott

    Razzle: Such a board universal claim is completely untenable. There is nothing wrong with advocating living well within your means and restricting materialism as a form of self-discipline. The idea of commercial excess is one of the things that brought down the American economy. I’m not saying I have the right or privilege to stop you from buying anything – buy whatever the hell you want. I just think rampant consumerism is unnecessary and a distraction.

    My problem comes in when those saying “abandon wealth”, don’t.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Gimme an example where someone was told to stop trying to get rich and the person telling them that, wasn’t trying to hold them back.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    On a large scale.

  • avatar

    Scott

    GHANDI – Practiced a near-monastic lifestyle to discipline himself. Encouraged the populace of India to follow suit, including hunger strikes and boycotting all luxurious British imports for minimalist Indian resources, to put enough economic pressure on Britain so they could achieve independence (it worked).

    DIOGENES OF SINOPE – Lived on the streets of Athens. Saw civilization as an artifice that distracted man from his true nature, and thus led away from virtue. When abandoned by his slave, he said, “If the slave can live without a master, then the master can live without a slave.” Masturbated in public, claiming, “If only I could soothe my hunger by rubbing my belly.” Attracted many followers for his willingness to call out regularly the hypocrisy of the government. Atheist.

    MARX – Saw capitalism and consumerism as removing wealth from workers and towards the bureaucrats who contribute nothing but control everything, which leads to civil class conflict. In his ideal state, the total wealth would be shared among all people as equals to prevent stratification and further aristocratic domination, while still providing necessary goods.

    Now, you can debate the efficacy of their ideas all you want, but that’s irrelevant to your challenge, where you asked for examples where they “weren’t trying to hold someone back”. These three men absolutely wanted to help people, and while they had varying degrees of success, that is currently moot. “Trying” implies 1) a psychological attitude, something that does not need to be borne out in reality, and 2) only the input, not the output, since you are asking for intentions.

    Hope this helps.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Okay, questionable – you cannot say those leaders weren’t trying to hold them back, they may state certain desires, but the results speak to the contrary. That gives you decent reason to think – they knew what would happen when they told these people to stay poor. You could be right, or wrong on that.

    I should have referred you back to my stating of my point though

    //When a leader tells you to give up your shit and don’t try to be rich, they are trying to oppress you, whether you realize it, or not and whether they are doing it on purpose or not.//

    [][][]whether they are doing it on purpose or not[][][]

  • avatar

    Razzle

    It does seem i used the word trying incorrectly orginally, but that hardly changes my point.

    Maybe i should change it to

    “When a leader tells you to give up your shit and don’t try to be rich, they ARE oppressing you, whether you realize it, or not and whether they are doing it on purpose or not”

  • avatar

    Scott

    Much clearer. Thank you.

    Now, are you seriously saying Gandhi’s fight for Indian independence was his way of oppressing people? Given how horrible the British occupation was, it was absolutely for the better. If you want to challenge this point, you’ll need damn good evidence.

    There is no evidence to suggest Marx knew how badly his ideas would play out; in fact, everything shows him to be a complete idealist and dreamer. You can throw skepticism at any person because you cannot deductively demonstrate states of mind, and induction doesn’t prove anything at all. How do I know you’re not BSing me with your ideas?

    I disagree with the idea that anti-materialism is inherently oppressive. The most materialistic of economic systems is capitalism, and the two eras where it’s run free were the leads to the Great Depression and the current crisis. Even if you don’t believe in living a spartan lifestyle, there is nothing wrong with being frugal.

    And yes, I could be right or wrong. Thank you, Captain Tautology.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Very few systems, actually say, “don’t try to be rich”, which is why, when people do say that, it should raise big fucking red flags. When someone religious is telling you not to be rich and to listen to what he says about God, they are oppressing you.

    My point from the start and what continues to be my point, is that when someone says “don’t try to be rich”, they are oppressing you, even if they don’t know they are.

  • avatar

    Scott

    I want to know your basis for that giant, universal, all-consuming assertion. Go back to Gandhi – how was he trying to oppress India?

  • avatar

    Razzle

    Less money = less power. I will concede this; there may be some situation where it doesnt work that way, but its a fantastic rule of thumb.

    I revised my statement to make it clear that he didn’t need to be trying to oppress someone to actually do it.

  • avatar

    Scott

    Fine – how did Gandhi’s liberation of India from the British Empire oppress his country?

  • avatar

    Razzle

    1. That’s a very rare example where it doesn’t oppress his people and you’re showing why I should have and did say “I will concede this; there may be some situation where it doesnt work that way, but its a fantastic rule of thumb.”

    2. He didn’t tell everyone “don’t try to be rich” (I’m not sure exactly what he said – so lemme know if I’m wrong, I’m just putting this out as a possibility.)

    3. If he did tell everyone ” don’ try to be rich ” and they actually all followed it, perhaps they could have been just as, or even more successful by not listening to this part of his teaching – and still had more money in the mean time.

  • avatar

    Razzle

    There could be more, but those are the 3 i can think of

  • avatar

    Scott

    Now we’re getting somewhere – you backed down from the hard-line, absolutist position to one I don’t completely disagree with. Gandhi did promote a minimalist lifestyle, but he also practiced what he preached, which is more than we can say for the Vatican…

  • avatar

    Razzle

    I’m not into arguing just to argue. Also, i always have to get in the last word =)

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top