I really wasn't going to post the first thing, but
two bits of crazy are a bit too much for me. Plus I haven't ranted in a while.
Let me make clear that I have no quarrel with those who believe. I don't, but I'm no Dawkins. I also go to a Buddhist congregation fairly regularly, so I even participate in some organized form of religion. Religious people are just as welcome here as any other group, including Evangelicals. I'm really not trying to offend anyone, and apologize in advance if I do, but I'm offended.
First off, and slightly less crazy:
Adopt a Liberal. Which comes from the Liberty Council of Liberty University, which doesn't really allow kissing outside of marriage. It also has a main building with several floors that literally are nothing but poured concrete and large holes where stairwells are apparently supposed to go (at least as of a few years ago, when I went there for Debate Camp).
Anyway, Adopt a Liberal, in which one prays for God to show Liberals The Error Of Their Ways. Liberals such as President Obama (Most Radically Liberal President (FDR don't get no respect)), John Holdren (White House Director of Science and Technology), Barney Frank, Clinton, Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Olympia Snowe. Also 'the Unknown Liberal', which would be a really good name for a rock band. Apparently one can apply to be the Unknown Liberal by emailing them, which seems like a good way to spend an hour.
Apparently the result of this prayer is to make them "the kind of leaders who will encourage others to lead "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence."", which seems to A. miss something about the first amendment, and B.
is what some of them already try to do minus the constant godliness. Plus from what they say about the various politicians it's not entirely clear how many of their positions are derived from religion. They call out Bloomberg for being pro-gun control, which seems entirely compatible with peace and quiet (Also, I apparently entirely misinterpreted Jesus's statements about violence). They call out Obama for having praised Muslims' contributions to the US. You can read the rest on site.
Second off: You know the problem with the Bible? The one that the people in the first part of this post use to conclude that Gun Control is wrong, and Socialism is wrong, and that we really shouldn't be allowed to say that some Muslims contributed to the United States of America? That Bible.
The problem with that Bible is that it is has been
distorted to have a liberal bias. So they're
going to retranslate it.
No, you read that right. Apparently modern translations of the Bible are far too liberal, because they do things like emasculate Christianity. So they're going back to the 1611 King James version and retranslating it, via Wiki.
Which to me is a bit lazy, because it's not like you can't find it in
the original ancient Greek (that one even has interlinear translations — And one can be assured it is probably as good as reading Shakespeare in the original Klingon).
They have the following principles:
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] 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".
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
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.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
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
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."
I'm not saying that you can't be concise and smart, but wordiness can be smart too. And I don't not like double-negatives. They have not yet gotten to the
Camel through the eye of a needle parable in any of its three iterations, which will be an interesting translation.
But this is a kind of zero sum game. Are the Liberals now going to have to come out with their own version of the bible? Is the Catholic Church (which is not behind this in any way) now even more ungodly because they prefer to say that
Hell is mainly the absence of God rather than the presence of a bunch of imps with hot pokers?
No good can come of this. The existence of a conservative Bible will be like the existence of a conservative news channel — even if the other ones have tried to be as neutral as possible, the newcomer pushes them to the left.
