The Bible is a librul lie!

 I find that hilarious and funny, but also scary...

Especially the free-market one...

They had a barter and banter system in that age, there were no fixed prices, and money wasn't really used, applying a modern idea about free market to something like that is ridiculous, especially when today we have huge conglomerates who can shove out the little guy... 

And don't even get me started on "applying logic [to] the very real existence of Hell or the Devil"... >.<

Oh and liberals are very unlikely bothering with the bible, most of them are probably produced by giant conservative owned conglomerates anyways...

I actually lol'd at "liberal wordiness."

I read the post and I don't understand the arguement that this post is making.

So you don't like how the Bible is being interpreted in mordern times?  Again, I dont know if you for the interpretations or against them.

Check out Islam or Baha'i for "updated" religious texts, they are all delivered/given to us by the same dude (God). 

Oh, and Hell is a scare tactic used by all major religions. Why? Because "fire" is magical, and it burns like a MoFo, hense, our fear of it. But once you accept that it could not/does not exist, you will live a much happier life, outside of fear.

Cheers.

 I think the fact he says "The irony... IT BURNS" means he's laughing at it.

Maybe.

I read it as, The irony... You're going to burn in hell.

Which is what comes out of a lot of religious rhetoric.

 Well considering many of the OP's other posts have a liberal tone, I'm guessing he finds it funny or sad.

"Exclude later-inserted liberal passages."

Yeah, like that pesky New Testament. It'd be a lot easier to get people to follow the modern conservative doctrine of sexual, religious, and racial intolerance with blind obedience if we didn't have to explain why Jesus seems to love everyone.

Three letters.  

Wow. 

Clearly the dark forces in American political theology are gathering.  The fear and division are almost palpable enough to taste.

The irony is twofold.

First.

So you have this book, that's written in parts starting from 3600 years ago ending 1800 years ago.

This book also happens to be representative of the moral zeitgeist of Europe from around 500 AD to 1600 AD. You know, ye goode olde dayes of "Bring Out Thy Dead!", "It's a Witch! Kill It With Fire!" and "Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Then you have a group of people, who, 1800 years after completion of said book, proclaim said book to be too socially progressive and not respectful enough of their traditional values.

Which, if you subscribe to the theory that human history has a progressive trend, gives you an indication of the anachronism that defines these people, in terms of when they are in the stage of their moral development. Specifically, they seem to be in the period in (pre)-history when the height of human civilization consisted of banding together so that they can bashing another group's heads with rocks and clubs.

If you think goat-herders 3600 years ago are too socially progressive and want to rewrite their book to be even more intolerant, belligerent and bigoted, then you're doing it wrong.

Second.

Said 1800 year-old book specifically says that you may not alter it. You alter it and proclaim previous version to be illegitimate.

Any perceived liberal tone is unintended. As Colbert once said, reality has a liberal bias. I am simply a rationalist. Liberals are not without fault (especially with regards to unions, trade, globalization, and the developing world), but to their credit, they are usually much more rational than (the current crop of) Republicans. The angular velocity of Barry Goldwater turning in his grave is now enough to generate electricity for 3 city blocks.

 when people inject their political views into everything.  People on both sides seem to always think in red and blue, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat.  no grey area, no middle ground.

Meanwhile, the rest of the population (i.e. most of us) has to deal with their crap all the time.

oh and the suggestion to just take the KJV and update that AGAIN was hilarious.  it's not nearly as close to the original documents as the more modern "liberal" translations.

Also, King James was a homosexer. *GASP*

 wasn't he a ped too?

If anyone is interested in a church that strives to avoid mistranslated scripture, I recommend  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Everyone is welcome any time, but on October 18 there will be a special service for people who are unfamiliar with the church and would like to see what it is all about.  The service is at 11 a.m., and located at 2925 James Street.  You can e-mail me at katyxjones@hotmail.com if you have any questions, or if you would just like to discuss religion.

Those conservative extremists sure are a bunch of cuties with their big-kid ideas.

I thought he was just a homosexer. But ah, what's the difference?

/sarcasm

Actually, your church is the most extreme form of bible revisionists. Not content with just modifying your holy book(s), your prophet wrote a wholly separate one. Is the book of Mormon "less mistranslated"? Possibly, but only by virtue of it being written in roughly contemporary English.

www.youtube.com/watch

I don't know if all the video says is true or not just thought it was interesting (in a scary kinda way)

 wow, liberal wordiness?  that WASN'T just trying to translate the ancient text as well as possible?  could the original text have been - gasp - WORDY?

Geez.

Oh, and how dare we try to include women? Dang liberals, always clouding up those misogynistic, fear-based principles...

heres a better religion. its proven right over and over again...i currently belong to it..

http://www.venganza.org/

solves all major problems. check it out on wiki and youll know who the real god is..

The fact that you said "real god" scares me. Because if you were worshiping a God worth his 2 nickles, you would understand that all Gods are actually One God.

People just give him different names because as a society, much like highschool, we like to be different AND clique-y, which is somehow not a contradiction.

Lol, just saw the site. Jokes. IF somehow this is like a serious thing that people enjoy being into, your just giving 1 variable another sumbol.

EDIT: Oh, and Mormons are typically good people. No beef here.

All are one, or all are none ( I subscribe to the latter theory), unless of course you're Pagan in which case you have a bunch of gods and they're all assholes, but some are less asshole then others (By pagan I am referring to the Ancient Greek/Roman/Norse/Egyptian pantheons and not the modern day paganistic beliefs of which I am not familiar with).

As for Pastafanarianism, it is a real thing that people are into: as a form of anti-creationism in school.

Any movement, in my opinion, to 'eliminate xxx bias' whether it be liberal or conservative is a movement best ignored to die a, hopefully, quick death. This world is great because we have varying opinions and will only remain great as long as we have those opinions.

As a political 'Liberal' my only problem with American Conservatism is it's thorough blend with religion, especially in the form of Evangelical Christianity. Our government should remain secular and our politicians should be such too, in my opinion. I subscribe to some Conservative ideas: I believe 'in' the death penalty, and in stronger immigration laws, but I don't believe that we shouldn't give homosexual couples the right to marry. I have never been able to come up with a nonreligious argument against gay marriage. You can argue that our 'utensils' fit better/naturally when it's man+woman, but that only answers the physical/procreation side of a relationship, and not the emotional/mental aspects. You could say that for thousands of years marriage has been between men and women; for thousands of years there was slavery (was even in the bible) yet we've determined that was not the way things should be done, the exclusivity of marriage should soon follow.

Without drawing this out into a religious debate (which I'd rather avoid on this topic) , what I am getting at is that I believe that Conservatism is dying. Not because 'liberal' is more right (because it's really left), but because it became the party of the religious south and is now in a time where secularism is more widespread and, like any dying man, is clinging ever so tightly to a select few ideas of it's beliefs, while it's ember slowly evaporates. Conservative politics have some good ideas (let's face it, economics is a crap shoot, there isn't a sure fire right or wrong, whether you're an economic liberal or a Keynesianist, eventually the economy will go to the dogs for a period of time), and it's sad that it's dying because it's clinging onto the 'wrong' ideas. It needs to be a more open party if it expects to survive the 21st century.

I think conservatism needs to reach back to its secular and more libertarian roots. Neo-conservatism (I like to call it "nu-conservatism" :D) is what's killing conservatism.

What I find funny about this is their pseudo-intellectual approach to it.  Further down that page, they propose to take out Luke 23:34 because no other Gospel has that phrase, and it doesn't appear in the "earliest, most authentic manuscripts."  Very nice, solid criteria for textual evaluation.  But why stop at softy, clearly liberal verses?  What about other verses that don't show up anywhere else?  They may not look liberal, but I'll betcha they're veritable Trojan horses of liberal bias!

Therefore, I propose we eliminate any part of the Bible that isn't repeated in some other part of the Bible.  That should keep us safe, and we'll have a riveting remnant of genealogies and sacrificial instructions.

I wonder if I'd get fined if I decided to sacrifice a lamb to a god atop a hill. I think that's why the world's so shitty; not enough sacrifices, which may be attributed to the rampant amount of sex teens have these days, thus limiting the amount of virgins we can appropriately sacrifice. I say we round of the remaining virgins and sacrifice them to make the world better for the rest of us. Although, I'm sure the leftist liberals would be against that idea so I propose, as an alternative, we sacrifice the population in prison. Elminating the huge tax burden that are prisonors and getting use out of those gas machines and rifle ranges that aren't being used. Everybody wins.

/endjest

 consciousness is god. think about it.

It sounds like someone........ isn't taking into account,  the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" into their vigorous research (I'm sure.)

That's a no-no.

Thank Christ (HA!) we're not like THEM!  We sure are open and fair, and even though we are right about absolutely everything, it's only polite to hear them out ever once in awhile.  Plus, it's good for a snicker or two.  Shit, now I want a Snickers.

@Cole

The reason we find this funny is because the conservatives which have used the bible for so long as their basis are now saying thats it's been infiltrated by liberal bias. My question is when? did the great liberal conspiracy just start recently? let me guess right around 9/11 and bush has been using this newly updated bible all along?

Also my conservative friends also find this funny, disturbing, and in one case down right disgraceful. It's not just the liberals.