Irony alert: If the Bible is the Word of God, why is it being rewritten?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Because as everyone knows the Democrats hate religion and plan on making it illegal. That's why America elected Obama. Soon our plans for a left wing destruction of tradition will go into effect where Obama tells children to stay in school (gasp) and we don't worship God, we worship gay people...ALL HAIL LIBERACE

Oh nice. (golf clap) Very nice use of sarcasm.

Are you really trying to deny that the DailyKOS has not fabricated anything?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm with Gaf when I think this is kinda B.S....

I don't know who did it, since the sources are really crappy and the creation dates of some pages are kinda shifty, but it all seems odd to me. There is also the fact that no matter where I ask people never tell me WHO is doing this. Simply saying the conservatives means nothing...not all conservatives read the bible or are even part of a church and nobody can tell me what church is using this. I know that most versions of christianity are not going to use this because most that I know about have a bible that is translated from the old greek and hebrew, and the only "revisions" over the years have been side notes and little crap like that.

I love how black and white we have become here...we can just lump an entire political group together when we find an article that might have something to do with them. Nah, this is probably a small happening that not many people are a part of...might even be a bunch of B.S. as far as anyone here knows.

Thank you but I must point out an error. The Bible has been changed multiple times. the King James Bible was a major and sweeping change. Twice they have changed what Books are in the bible. The writings about Jesus in his younger years have been competly removed. The original writings were mostly in Aramaic but also in ancienHebrew, Sanskrit and a few other ancient langueges. It was all translated into Greek, then Latin and then German and finally English.

[candyman]

Thank you but I must point out an error. The Bible has been changed multiple times. the King James Bible was a major and sweeping change. Twice they have changed what Books are in the bible. The writings about Jesus in his younger years have been competly removed. The original writings were mostly in Aramaic but also in ancienHebrew, Sanskrit and a few other ancient langueges. It was all translated into Greek, then Latin and then German and finally English.

Yeah I know that it has been changed a few times...but not exactly to the evil extent that some people like to talk about. Alot of my friends are pastors in the Lutheran side and they have to study the old Hebrew stuff and the Greek stuff. They know that some things get lost in translation but that can hardly be avoided. Most of the readings used in the Lutheran that I know are direct translations from texts that are as original as the pastors can get...and you really can't fault them for trying to do their best.

There are so many different offshoots of Christianity that it is impossible that they all follow "one" bible...which is kinda sad in a way. This hammers home the point that laughing at the whole of the Christian community for this is insanely stupid...if you find this funny are probably acting like a 5 year old over something that a very small handful of people either did or possibly faked.

At least the Christians don't have holy wars with other Christians that worship in a slightly different manner than they do...the Sunni and Shiite problem comes to mind...

[phee]

At least the Christians don't have holy wars with other Christians that worship in a slightly different manner than they do...the Sunni and Shiite problem comes to mind...

Yeah... Its a good thing that the Catholics and Protestants have gotten along so well throughout history and never had wars against one another....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre would be a good band name.

[Slogo]

At least the Christians don't have holy wars with other Christians that worship in a slightly different manner than they do...the Sunni and Shiite problem comes to mind...

3 Years war

Dutch rebellion against Spain

The Tudors (Specifically Henry VIII, Edward V1, and Mary)

Northern Ireland

The widespread movement against Catholics in America in the mid-19th century

St. Barts Day Massacre

The French Wars of Religion

Seriously...google that shit

edited to add: Atheists and Agnostics don't get into wars over not believing in a slightly different way

Edited October 7, 2009 by Slogo

[Constantin]

this might not be so bad you all remember http://www.detroitgothic.net/index.php?showtopic=27722&st=0&p=573681&hl=bible&fromsearch=1&#entry573681

[Rev.Reverence]

edited to add: Atheists and Agnostics don't get into wars over not believing in a slightly different way

...yet...

[phee]

...yet...

[candyman]

I was talking more about present times...not the age where looking at a man wrong could get you into a duel...or when religion was pretty much the government as well.

Also, religion has nothing to do with wars. I merely stated what I did because a christian merely has to fart and the people go nuts while other religions tend to get a little more slack. I am not trying to make this a religious fight either...I could hardly give a shit what anyone believes. But throwing the christians to the lions stopped a long time ago.

There are plently of wars or fights started by people who believe in nothing...which really doesn't work because you must believe in something to actually get into someone elses face...if you really don't believe in anything then you would be about as reactive as a noble gas.

And I love adding these little things at the bottom because it seems that it is the only thing that people read and react to no matter what the rest of the post says...boobs...and if something is wrong then sarcasm muct be used to shame the other person because if they are wrong because of a quick post with little time to research they must be a lost cause.

Observe that the above was a great run-on sentence and that I spelled must wrong...I put muct.

[phee]

I do agree that several non believers have been aggressive and started stuff... but not in the name of non-belief as far as I can tell.

I mean a lot of people with facial hair have started wars as well... but like the non-believers non-belief... their facial hair had nothing to do with the war they started.

[torn asunder]

Also, religion has nothing to do with wars.

frankly, i don't know what to say to this - i'm dumbfounded... you can't be serious!?

[phee]

frankly, i don't know what to say to this - i'm dumbfounded... you can't be serious!?

+1

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I do agree that several non believers have been aggressive and started stuff... but not in the name of non-belief as far as I can tell.

I mean a lot of people with facial hair have started wars as well... but like the non-believers non-belief... their facial hair had nothing to do with the war they started.

Well, there was Stalin (the greatest mass murderer of all time) but you really could not say what he did to his own people was a "war". It was "stuff" though, one of the "reasons" for the killings was non-beleif (like give up your religion or die) and he did start it.

[Slogo]

Also, religion has nothing to do with wars.

Millions of dead motherfuckers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the god question: "Do you believe in God?" "No." Boom! Dead. "Do you believe in God?" "Yes..." "Do you believe in my God?" "No." Boom! Dead. "My god has a bigger dick than your god!" ~ George Carlin

[candyman]

Again I posted too quickly since I am trying to get a customers car out of the shop.

What I really meant was...religion is not the only reason for wars. Many wars have been started because of religion, or religion was used to persuade the populace that the other must be beaten, and then there are the wars that were started for other reasons.

And I don't really believe in "non-believers"...but that is just me believing something. Politics, money, power, Ford vs. Chevy, and all that crap has to do with believing in something. Fights, wars, and illegal street races that end in deadly accidents can be started by many other things besides religion...they are started by believing in something and going against someone that thinks otherwise.

[phee]

Again I posted too quickly since I am trying to get a customers car out of the shop.

What I really meant was...religion is not the only reason for wars. Many wars have been started because of religion, or religion was used to persuade the populace that the other must be beaten, and then there are the wars that were started for other reasons.

And I don't really believe in "non-believers"...but that is just me believing something. Politics, money, power, Ford vs. Chevy, and all that crap has to do with believing in something. Fights, wars, and illegal street races that end in deadly accidents can be started by many other things besides religion...they are started by believing in something and going against someone that thinks otherwise.

Fair enough... I do agree that religion is most definitly not the only reasons wars are started.

But when I say "non-believers" I am referring to the religious/diety/spiritual sense. Not referring to Nihilism

[candyman]

Fair enough... I do agree that religion is most definitly not the only reasons wars are started.

But when I say "non-believers" I am referring to the religious/diety/spiritual sense. Not referring to Nihilism

True, not many wars are started over Ford vs. Chevy...probably because neither can stop breaking down long enough to race.

Far from the original point, all I really wanted to say is that it seems a bit unfair to be attacking "christians" as a whole for this...at least that is what it seems like.

It stated conservatives as though all conservatives are christians...which they are not. It also seems as though it is thought that any christian out there is in full support of what is going on, if it truly is for real, and that they will all gladly follow the "new bible". It just seemed a bit unfair to me. I am not a christian nor am I a conservative...but I probably should be because every time I step in front of someone picking on a conservative or a christian I get blown away...I would like to thank the conservatives and the christians for not doing that nearly as often although ignoring me with not so much as a look kinda sucks too.

[phee]

I agree again... not a christian specific issue... *nods*

The conservative christians in this country seem to make a lot more noise then a lot of moderates would like... therefore bring a lot of people down

[candyman]

I agree again... not a christian specific issue... *nods*

The conservative christians in this country seem to make a lot more noise then a lot of moderates would like... therefore bring a lot of people down

Kinda like Rush? Well, a leash and a muzzle would help but that would be considered cruel. The right has Rush and the left has Moore...

If there is a god he should take care of those nut jobs with a good old flaming ball from heaven...

[Tacohitts]

As George Carlin would say...

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

[Rev.Reverence]

I was talking more about present times...not the age where looking at a man wrong could get you into a duel...or when religion was pretty much the government as well.

And I love adding these little things at the bottom because it seems that it is the only thing that people read and react to no matter what the rest of the post says...boobs...and if something is wrong then sarcasm muct be used to shame the other person because if they are wrong because of a quick post with little time to research they must be a lost cause.

Observe that the above was a great run-on sentence and that I spelled must wrong...I put muct.

...ok...I understand that you've been posting in a hurry, may I please point out, that you can as easily leave the reply page open, & post nice & slow...like I do, yes, I take an hour or so to think before I even start typing...because, dude, when you just start shooting off at the mouth, it takes away from the inelegant point that you are attempting to make.....

.....like now...you have made a big ole' messy error...back in the day, yeah, you COULD get into a duel to the death...not for looking at someone the wrong way, that was a gross exaggeration...honor had to be at stake...

.....BUT NOW...you can look at a fella' "wrong"...& get shot to death with NO WARNING...shit, you could just be in the wrong place, with the wrong coloured shirt on, & get shot to death...

...there's your #1 stupid reason for war...shirt colour...& don't come back with a gang-war isn't a war...

..I've seen it.

Well, there was Stalin (the greatest mass murderer of all time) but you really could not say what he did to his own people was a "war". It was "stuff" though, one of the "reasons" for the killings was non-beleif (like give up your religion or die) and he did start it.

.....I retract my previous, "Yet..."

I fergot about that...I never really studied the whole G*DLEESS-COMMUNISM thing...it was always on it's way out since my age of reasoning came around...

[phee]

It is clearly true that Stalin persecuted religious peoples and institutions.... but also keep in mind that there were very few people he didn't persecute.

Communism was a comprehensive, all-embracing religion and not simply a political party, political system or philosophy. This fact is illustrated by the numerous ways in which Communism embraced and attemped to promulgate peculiar quasi-religious (and often clearly anti-scientific) beliefs which had nothing all to do with politics or government. Although Communism typically touted itself as anti-religious and pro-science, it was, in fact, deeply anti-scientific and clearly a religion. One of Communism's hallmarks in the Soviet Union and China was its aggressive and violent suppression of other religions. Communism was "anti-religious" only in the sense that it forcibly suppressed all religions other than itself. From: Colin MacCabe, Godard: A Portrait of the Artist at Seventy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York (2003), page 398:

In other words... he pretty much destroyed anyone and everyone who did not look at himself as a religion/political... not because of his atheism or "in the name of" atheism.

He executed almost everything and anything from military leaders, politcal opposition, and religion.... and again... not in the name of atheism.

Was he an atheist? YES... Was that why or the reason he did what he did? no.

[Rev.Reverence]

It is clearly true that Stalin persecuted religious peoples and institutions.... but also keep in mind that there were very few people he didn't persecute.

In other words... he pretty much destroyed anyone and everyone who did not look at himself as a religion/political... not because of his atheism or "in the name of" atheism.

He executed almost everything and anything from military leaders, politcal opposition, and religion.... and again... not in the name of atheism.

Was he an atheist? YES... Was that why or the reason he did what he did? no.

..I disagree...whilst seeing your point...

....I see that he destroyed peoples that believed differently than he did...

...that sounds like the Crusades to me...

[phee]

.....I retract my previous, "Yet..."

I fergot about that...I never really studied the whole G*DLEESS-COMMUNISM thing...it was always on it's way out since my age of reasoning came around...

If we are to believe Wiki.... you might have to retract this

Religious beliefs and policies

Stalin had a complex relationship with religious institutions in the Soviet Union.^[251] One story reports that while he studied at a seminary, he became a closet atheist.^[252] However, this story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin's remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.^[253] One account states that Stalin's reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven.^[254]

Historian Edvard Radzinsky used recently discovered secret archives and noted a story that changed Stalin's attitude toward religion.^[254] The story in which Ilya, Metropolitan of the Lebanon Mountains, claimed to receive a sign from heaven that "The churches and monasteries must be reopened throughout the country. Priests must be brought back from imprisonment, Leningrad must not be surrendered, but the sacred icon of Our Lady of Kazan should be carried around the city boundary, taken on to Moscow, where a service should be held, and thence to Stalingrad Tsaritsyn."^[254] Shortly thereafter, Stalin's attitude changed and "Whatever the reason, after his mysterious retreat, he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian has yet written about. On his orders many priests were brought back to the camps. In Leningrad, besieged by the Germans and gradually dying of hunger, the inhabitants were astounded, and uplifted, to see wonder-working icon Our Lady of Kazan brought out into the streets and borne in procession."^[254] Radzinsky asked, "Had he seen the light? Had fear made him run to his Father? Had the Marxist God-Man simply decided to exploit belief in God? Or was it all of these things at once?."^[254]

During the Second World War Stalin reopened the Churches. One reason could have been to motivate the majority of the population who had Christian beliefs. The reasoning behind this is that by changing the official policy of the party and the state towards religion, the Church and its clergymen could be to his disposal in mobilizing the war effort. On 4 September 1943, Stalin invited Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Alexy and Metropolitan Nikolay to the Kremlin and proposed to reestablish the Moscow Patriarchate, which had been suspended since 1925, and elect the Patriarch. On 8 September 1943, Metropolitan Sergius was elected Patriarch.