An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Now the Bible Is Too Darn Liberal
(What do you expect in this age of ideological news networks when people will only read what they already agree with in advance? It makes…some kind of…sense….in that context..)
60 Responses to “Now the Bible Is Too Darn Liberal”
Aw, plagues are so Old Testament, Rudi…. not quite Jesus' style (that was his Dad's thing.)
In all seriousness though, it's interesting that you brought up the corruptibility of Church bureaucracy because that was running through my mind as I wrote some of the comments here. I often wonder why it is that some people see every reason to distrust organized religion (or private corporate bureaucracy, take your pick) even as they turn a blind eye to the same phenomenon as it exists in government. There always seems to be this naive attachment of the idea that our elected reps are simply stand ins for 'we the people' and that the institution of our government can be trusted when we elect people who voice the appropriate concerns.
“with the liberal idea of a 'living Constitution'.”
This has always been a “living, breathing” lie, and of course is selective — not only in the revised meanings that are claimed to be (such as Nina Totenberg dishonesty describes them as) “modern interpretations” of the Constitution (i.e., substitution of liberal desires for what was actually meant and what the law still means; it has nothing to do with clarification or extension of valid construction of what was made law to modern things like aircraft and their use, for example). Not only that. It is selective; so often what matters is only what certain rights are seen as fit for misapplication (“free speech” constituting any and all kind of degenerate or offensive behaviors) or for deliberate neglect (the Second Amendment being favored for this treatment) while the others are retained (or misused).
“I have yet to hear a liberal deny the writings of the Founding fathers in this debate.”
It's impossible (nobody can correctly say, as so many libs do, that “red” now means or should mean green, and that colors and words and meanings are “living, breathing,” and fully malleable to liberal goals), and inconsistent (actually, hypocritical), since many losers'-resorts include reliance on the First Amendment (“free speech,” except when it's campaigning for the GOP or against the Dems and involves more money than the other side is able or willing to raise and spend; then it should be illegal, as well as any and all pro-GOP-con or anti-lib-Dem speech on the airwaves, which is “unfair”) as well as misconstruction (deliberately) of the “general welfare” clause (often involving low-IQ equivocation), or (the most laughable losers' staple) references to the Preamble, etc.
Of course, deliberate misconstruction (“modern interpretation”) of the Constitution is sought not only as a way of getting the judiciary to function as legislature, too, but because doing things the legitimate way, through the legislative process, first requires that these people actually win plenty of elections. They don't, which is one reason why they misuse the law — a bypass, not only a short cut.
Fortunately, Obama's recent Supreme Court choice doesn't raise decent, intelligent people's concerns too highly when it comes to this threat; it could have been much, much worse.
“If the scales haven't fallen from your eyes yet about that organization (which encompasses a wide array of other groups, going under hundreds of other names) and the corruption at their core…[)]“
The concern about corruption of the Census (and subsequent redistricting and related matters) remains in effect.
In the case of our corrupt incompletent government, we are allowed to vote in or out our representation. In the case of corporations or the church, no vote…
You vote with your feet, and wallet, Rudi. Church membership is voluntary. Don't like what they're doing or what they stand for, you leave. Don't want to financially contribute, then don't (unlike taxation which is coerced and punishable by law.)
As for the govt, unfortunately many of the crooks don't get voted out. Often their corruption isn't seen by the public, and even when it is some people choose to look the other way. And in best case scenario when they are voted out, there's usually damage already done.
“Don't want to financially contribute, then don't “
Except, of course, that churches are tax-exempt in all their profits, unlike any individual or corporation or politician. So we don't really have a choice in that, do we?
Here I think JD is getting the “Word” (i.e., Christ as the incarnate Word) confused with the “words” of the bible. The words of the bible are clearly not perfect, if perfect means “without error.” Just have a look at the early Judaic understanding of genetics in Genesis 30: 37-39:
Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
The words are also not perfect in the sense of “without contradiction.” There are simply many passages in the words of the bible that contradict each other.
So JD, do you mean Christ the Word is perfect, or the words of the bible?
No, the Bible does not contradict itself.
And yes, the hebrews added all kinds of stories in the Bible. I'm not defending the Old Testament. The Old Testament remains God's Word, and explains (very well) the journey through the Patriarchal age, the Mosaic age, up to and including the New Covenant within the New Testament. The lineage, law, and everythign else was in place to bring about the Christ and establish His Kingdom. Once that goal was reached, the Word was made perfect (complete).
So….to answer your question. Both Christ the Word and the Word of the Bible are indeed perfect. And there is no contradiction in the Bible. I've studied every supposed contradiction and found it to be nothing more than misunderstanding and lack of research.
Without wishing to be rude, it's hard for me to imagine that you have studied every supposed contradiction in the bible, objectively. Scholars spend lifetimes on this topic, and frankly your writing doesn't come across as very scholarly. I could be wrong, though. (Is that something you would ever consider saying?)
However, your choice not to defend the OT is certainly interesting, and I'm sure plenty of people would take umbrage at it, including observant Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and some mainline folks.
But I'm going to stop writing about this b/c it's sort of off topic, and because it isn't good for my soul, frankly, to deal with you.
Last comment.
I couldn't let that last one go unanswered, even if I am illiterate.
You should know that I did not intend to say that I research every single charge of contradiction in human history. Only the ones brought to my attention. The fact of the matter is that the entire existence of the Jews and God's protection of them was for the purpose of bringing forth a Christ. Even Jews will tell you that – they are still waiting for a Christ, because the Christ didn't come across as “kingly enough”. They were waiting for another David or Elijah, and what they got was a lowly carpenter who acted as a servant. Even though the Jewish Prophets predicted just that – a lowly servant (Daniel, Jeremiah, etc).
Then came the Kingdom, or Church. There was one Church (and still is) in the first century. Then the “scholars” of which you are so fond, came up with better more interesting ways of doing things. Shortly thereafter, came off-shoots and denominations. First the Catholic Church, then the “reformation”, and so on. There are even “scholars” today that say the Bible just isn't meant for “Today's churches”.
The point I'm trying to make (and it is, indeed, good for your soul), is that you, I, and any other person out there that proclaims Christianity are members of the same Church. (assuming that you are a Christian). People will continue to follow creed books, false doctrine, and men instead of God's Word. As long as they do, they are separated from Him.