Conservatives Rewriting 'Liberal' Bible
By Mary Papenfuss, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 6, 2009 4:48 AM CDT
The Conservative Bible Project aims to rout out liberal bias in the holy book.   (©:) carmen)

(Newser) – Even the Bible isn't conservative enough for some conservatives. The mysterious "Conservative Bible Project" aims to bring the holy book back to its right-wing "roots" by routing out muddy translation and liberal "bias." That includes no more "gender inclusive" terms that "emasculate" Christianity and rethinking liberal words like "comrade" and "peace." Economic parables should be clarified to be "free market" lessons, and hell presented as scary as ever and not "downplayed," states the conservapedia.com site.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 80 comments
newsrmandan
Oct 11, 2009 7:35 AM CDT
A28 this is probably a cold posting by now but, if you will for the sake of argument allow that Jesus existed, you say he may have had anger issue and probably Jewish Preacher of sorts, then you also have to admit that, as just a preacher, he was the biggest whack job ever to have existed. Worse whack job than Jim Jones or Manson insert your favorite televangelist here______. Why? because he claimed to be God. This I suspect you know is the highest of Jewish offenses and thus the cross. Now I will admit that there is not tun of extra biblical references to this man Jesus. But that does not mean there aren't any. So Jesus, if not King of the Universe, like he claimed to be, is the devil of hell (worse if there is no devil or Hell which would be logical if the accounts of scriptures were just fables of men), and the jewish leaders were right to kill him. He was the talk of the dessert, but to find first hand accounts by the mother of the Kid who brought the fish and loaves is asking a tad to much of her resources if she had any. The Bible lays out the leap from death of christ to payment for sins. That actually is the point of the whole book of the bible both Old and New. The Gospel !! You seen it before, John 3: 16 For God love the world that he gave his son so that the one that believes in him will not suffer but have eternal life. When I believe the bible I believe all of it, creation to water walking to wine making to raising dead to paying for my sins, I am not being unreasonable or insane I am simply putting my faith and trust in the one who says he created this world and the one who,in the same story, says he's coming back for those who trust in him. So why am I being called insane? I am, if it is not true but so far you have not "proven" it not to be true. The burden falls on the unbeliever not me. Why don't you believe the simple explanation is a complicated one any more reasonable or logical or sane? Insane is putting your hope that when you die you become worm food, nihilistically escaping the wrath of God in hell.
Aelius
Oct 8, 2009 8:33 AM CDT
Son of a bitch, sorry, I replied to the wrong post. Look one post above yours here, I respond to you.
Aelius
Oct 8, 2009 8:33 AM CDT
@newsermandan, you can say we're closed-minded all you want but that won't get you anywhere any more than it would if I said that YOU were closed-minded. I believe that's true, but I don't mention it because it's a baseless assertion. Extend the same courtesy, baseless assertions are annoying to sift through. Now, as for Jesus, I don't think there is sufficient reliable historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. BUT, I'm willing to grant that he existed for the sake of argument. If he existed, he was very likely a Jewish preacher, probably a decent guy, had a bit of a temper problem but who's perfect? Do I think he died on a cross? No, again I fail to see sufficient reliable historical evidence but I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument since it's not far-fetched and it's not particularly important. Why did he die? Because the Jews chose to have him crucified, if we believe the Biblical story. It doesn't really matter why he died, the point is that you're trying to lead up to the point where you say "See, Jesus died for your sins and therefore he did these miracles and all these wonderful things and was born to a virgin and is the son of God". That's where you get me, and most other atheists, proverbially rofl-ing because it's such an extraordinary claim and has a lack of evidence where we would EXPECT there to BE evidence. I mean, if we had a guy walking on water, healing the sick, feeding the masses... he was nailed to a plank and came back to LIFE, he should have been the talk of the desert. But the earliest references we have are from GENERATIONS after he lived, and we only get full Bible chapters over a CENTURY after he lived, so they're not contemporary by any means he was well beyond legendary status at that point. The whole thing is just laughably unsupported by archaeology and history and from a logical point of view it almost hurts to wrap one's mind around the fallacies necessary to get from "Jesus existed" to "Jesus died for your sins, did wonderful things like miracles, was born to a virgin, died on a cross for YOUR sins that you're guilty of because of two people who lived 6000 years ago in a magic garden did what their human nature dictated and were curious people, so accept Jesus or burn in hell". It's INSANE.