Cleansing The Bible of its Liberal Bias

You're a day late and a dollar short, Red.

I chuckle everytime some liberal suggests that a man who said there was only one way to heaven is a fellow lib.

That's only after you die that he becomes dictatorial. Between here and there though, how many of his teachings are truly embraced by the right?

Mind you, I don't care one way or another.

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-06 12:39 PM

I don't think many of his teachings are embraced by many people at all, regardless of left-right political affiliation.

Nor do I care; ascribing modern day political persuasions to an ancient figure seems pointless imo.

Changing your life because of the ramblings attributed to an ancient figure is equally pointless.

#8 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-06 12:44 PM

Not if it helps one, say, give up a destructive life style.

Moses was a liberal, but of the BoOB variety as he also heard voices commanding him to start his own country.

#10 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-06 12:48 PM

Hilarious.

Sure, it's just not the only way to do that. It's silly when people act like it is.

If you can kick your smack habit because it makes Jesus cry, you could have given it up at any point before that. It just took a bit of myth and mental gymnastics to convince you.

So sure, there's probably always going to be a place for religion in society... it's not essential, however.

#12 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-06 12:51 PM

To those of us with family members who have gone through addictions, and come out of them, we don't really if the method was essential, myth, or ZombieHunter approved. We just care that what worked, worked.

The new atheists hate religion for causing between-group conflict and especially for its wanton disregard of the canons of rational thought. Yet, both of these problems extend far more widely than religion. Between-group conflict pervades the animal world. Ant colonies, lion prides, and chimp troops don't have religion, but they do have between-group conflict. As for the canons of rational thought, to the extent that brains evolved by natural selection, their main purpose is to cause organisms to behave adaptively in the real world--not to directly represent the real world.

This leads to a crucial distinction between what I call factual and practical realism. Consider Hans and Igor, who are mortal enemies. Hans understands that Igor is much like himself, even to the point of competing for the same square of ground. Igor regards Hans as an inhuman monster, completely unlike himself. If Igor's belief makes him fight with greater determination, then it counts as practically realistic, even if it is factually incorrect. Now imagine similar contests among beliefs--and the brains that create beliefs--taking place over thousands of generations of genetic and cultural evolution. Voila! We arrive at a conception of human mentality that is far more nuanced and interesting than the black-and-white cartoon of atheism vs. religion.

Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com

*we don't really care

...that is...