GOD

There is this project whereby conservatives are writing their own bible. Like fascistpedia, they are attempting to create their own reality. This stuff just fascinates me. I mean fascistpedia will spend time telling you that Einstein had nothing to do with the development of the 'bomb'. It goes so far as to contend that Einstein had little to do with the Theory of Relativity--although they do not spend much time distinguishing between the General Theory and the Specific Theory. I think if one looked into this a little further, one might come to a conclusion that the 'dispute' concerning the size of Einstein's brain might have at its source some old time anti-Jewish sentiment. But who knows?

They might not like Albert because he became more of a pacifist in his old age. I don't know. Maybe some physicists had some real problems with their SAT's or their dissertations or something. You know, they had small dicks and women kept laughing at them, women who had pictures of Einstein on their walls....oh well.

So this Bible Project which has, of all people, Phyllis Shafly behind it put together some standards for developing a new bible. Now this is not a new translation. This is a new bible.

Now, if I am watching a game of rugby...I might find it interesting to watch for awhile. But once the teams start to fight each other over some ruling on the field I will, most probably, go back to Gunsmoke or some other show I had been watching. To some extent, let the religious fight each other and leave me alone.

Here are their basic standards for development according to them:

1.     Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias. For example, the Living Bibleevolutionary bias.[4] translation has liberal

2.     Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

3.     Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity[5]; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[6]

4.     Utilize Terms which better capture original intent: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[7] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5.     Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[8] by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[9] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

6.     Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

7.     Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8.     Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

9.     Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

10.  Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."   http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Now there are some rules here which are of interest to me.  I waiver a lot philosophically in that on certain days, hell sounds like a really neat idea. I do not think that my list of candidates for that honor would jive with CBP's slate.

On other, more sane days, I get caught in a mind loop over the issue of time. I mean eternity would actually mean that there is no time at all. That there can be no past and there can not be any future because time would be meaningless. Now take that conclusion and try to arrive at what a good definition of 'memory' would be.  Anyhow, I digress.

Well how is this going to work? Well I checked in with fascistpedia  and found this

The account is as follows (NIV version):[3]

(7:53 Then each went to his own home.) 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

If the adulteress story is removed, then the passage reads more naturally as follows:

(7:53 Then each went to his own home.) 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ... 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."

You see it appears that conservatives have fun throwing stones. Us liberals, well, we just do not like throwing stones. Actually, stone throwing at the right people....

Now, so far, the Project has like 3 books of the Old Testament rewritten and five books or so of the New Testament rewritten. They have a while to go and there are some rumblings in the conservative religious crowd about all of this.   Wiki is kind of a fun read actually concerning these fascist  organizations.

As I look at the standards for development, there I was reminded of two recent stories in the news.

First, Bret Hume, one of the worst excuses for a journalist I have ever seen, made it clear last year that Tiger Woods was having all these troubles because he was Buddhist and not a Christian. If Tiger could simply become a Christian, he could somehow put all this adultery behind him. My understanding is that Tiger liked threesomes from time to time so he was already putting adultery behind him and in front of him but that is an issue for another day.

Anyway the ethnocentric Brute would not have anymore an idea what Buddhism is than what truth or justice or the American Way are all about.  

At the time Hum's bullshit was all over the airs as it were and he looked even more stupid than usual.

Of course, Brutal surprises us all from time to time even though he is mostly retired now in some whorehouse in northern Florida.

Brit Hume has publicly called for Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity to find forgiveness and redemption following his sex scandal. And even after Tiger's apology � in which he reaffirmed his Buddhist faith � Hume still thinks Christianity is the best path for him.

"I think, because I'm a Christian and I believe that Christianity is true, that Tiger Woods and his wife Elin would be a lot farther down the road toward forgiveness and redemption if they were both Christians," Hume told Bill O'Reilly Monday. "But they're not. And they're going to do the best they can with what they have. And I wish Tiger Woods well."

Hume also said that, in his public apology Friday, Woods was a "shaken, chastened, and contrite man."

"Gone was the swagger," he said. "Gone was all of the radiant self-confidence that we used to see in him. This was a pretty shaken guy up there        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/24/brit-hume-still-saying-ti_n_474600.html

With all this information concerning the hypocrites at CSteet, we are supposed to think that Christianity is going to help rich powerful men keep their pee pees in their pantaloons.

Isn't life just fascinating sometimes?

The second bit of news concerns our old fiend Glenn of Beck.

Glenn Beck said last week on his eponymous show that Christians should leave churches that preach "social justice." Mr. Beck equated the desire for a just society with--wait for it--Nazism and Communism.

I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.

This means that you would have to leave the Catholic Church, which has long championed that aspect of the Gospel. The term "social justice" originated way back in the 1800s (and probably predates even that), and has been underlined by the Magisterium and popes since Leo XIII, who began the modern tradition of Catholic social teaching with his encyclical on capital and labor, Rerum Novarum in 1891. Subsequent popes have built on Leo's work, continuing the church's meditation on a variety of issues of social justice in such landmark documents as Pope Pius XI's encyclical on "the reconstruction of the social order," Quadregismo Anno (1931), Paul VI's encyclical "on the development of peoples," Populorum Progressio (1967) and John Paul II's encyclical "on the social concerns of the church" Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/glenn-beck-to-catholics-l_b_490669.html

The article from huffpo is written by a reverend and all. Probably cut from the same cloth as thousands of other members of the clergy who would not be that happy with this new bible project thingy.

The Becker is saying that he does not care what the bible says. It has nothing to do with anything. The problem lies in the leaders of your local parish. He does not really care what your religion is because he does not think it is relevant to anything. To Pecker, a real 'leader' can just take whatever is written and flip it around to prove anything he wishes to.

Just like his TV show.

To Brutus, the religion is everything because it reflects his small minded ethos. You cannot act like a real American if you are anything but Christian. We live, after all, in a Christian nation.

Oh well, Hummer and Peckerhead will proceed blindly as they always have and their followers will find their proper queues and everybody will find happiness in the end.