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.


  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.