If TYTs haven't mischaracterized it
then absolutely it's dumb of the self-styled conservatives to be embarking on their self-described "Conservative Bible Project." That TYT commentator is agnostic. He's been way off before about Christianity, but he does defer to others on the subject, which shows some humility. I'm going to check on the Conservapedia.
Well, I've seen all of their complaints before. What they aim to do is turn Jesus into a sexist, which he was not, a capitalist, which he was not, and a blood spiller, which he was not. They are trying to justify themselves via misreading the scriptures.
I've dealt with all of their complaints on the RLCC site. Their problem is that they don't know how to interpret the parables. They don't understand who is and who is not a son of man. They often falsely think that kings and judges and sons of man in the parables are referring to Jesus describing his Second Coming as literally as the most-fundamentalist fundamentalist takes the word "literal."
As for the adulteress story, it was scripture. It was inserted non-chronologically, but it accurately reflects Jesus's teaching. It does not stick out as a sore thumb, completely misplaced as scripture. Even with it gone, Jesus tells us not to use violence. He makes clear that there is no forcing or coercing anyone to bring forth Heaven.
He said to turn the other cheek. He taught his followers to give and share all. He had fleshly females following him (not every minute) and ministering to him as angels. There are female prophets (prophetesses) in the scriptures (Jesus used). I've written this before.
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. Exodus 15:20
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. Judges 4:4
So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her. 2 Kings 22:14
And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect. 2 Chronicles 34:22
My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear. Nehemiah 6:14
And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 8:3
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; Luke 2:36
Anyway, there are overly "modern" liberal Bible versions that were written/interpreted by lesbians and other sexual libertines to squeeze openly homosexuals through the front doors of churches. I'm surprised the Conservapedia didn't mention that in their list. Of course, more and more "conservatives" are coming out as homosexuals and bi-sexuals.
Another thing that's telling is that they claim the King James Version has 66 Books. That's wrong. The original KJV includes the Apocrypha. Now, if they want to qualify by saying 66 in their "narrow" canon, I would say that would be a bit less hypocritical.
What are they planning to do with the word "liberal" in the KJV, twist it? It means pretty much what they are not, which is truly harmless, bountiful, and beneficial. They are for capitalist greed afterall no matter how much they protest that they give. Well, they are only given to understand just so much. They don't get it all, obviously. The giving and sharing all in the Book of Acts is vastly superior to the Pauline. Although even Paul concedes that he is charged to remember the poor (something the "conservatives" certainly do not sufficiently do).
They're all confused. Jesus tells the rich to give everything to the cause of the poor and follow him; however, these "conservatives" want to say that Jesus will be back to ask for interest on his mammon. Now that's really thickheaded. The parable isn't Jesus teaching in favor of capitalism. Mammon is used analogously. Jesus is talking about what we do/did with the gift of enlightenment that he bestowed by God. Are we magnifying that? Are we bringing forth the Kingdom that happens to be mammonless in the end, as it is in the real, New Heaven.
Okay, so you're given money and you're already a Christian. What should you do? You should translate as much as reasonable into the Christian Commons.
Yes, we are trapped to some degree in the evil cycle of mammon. However, the more mammon we translate into the mammonless society the better. Is that too unselfish for you whoever you are? Do you believe in eternity of the soul? How long will it take to get out of the pit we've dug for ourselves? What is stick-to-itiveness? Is it worth anything?
I say once you know what Jesus was/is talking about, stick-to-itiveness is everything. Why give up? What will that get anyone except Satan? Even he loses in the end.
He loses because real love, truth, and peace win out. God wins out. It's a done deal even though we are required to bear it out.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)