[Replying to an article which claims the story where Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a forgery and shouldn't be in the Bible]
Thanks for your superb analysis, Michael, from which I learned immensely.
For the record, the ideological objection is not to how liberals "twist" this passage, but how the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful. It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor." Historical analysis can prove that to be non-authentic; political analysis can reach the same conclusion more efficiently and with a high degree of certitude.
Jesus did not forgive without repentance, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus did not comment on capital punishment, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus was not permissive about adultery, yet the Adulteress Story He was. Older people are not always wiser than younger ones, yet the Adulteress Story claims they are. And so on
103 comments
The Bible is God's preserved Word, insofar as it agrees with my personal opinion of what the Bible should say. Of course, Christians in general work from that principle, but few are so blatant about it.
So, he's denying the authenticity of a Bible passage because it doesn't fit the conservative ideology?
Please let this be a trend. I'd love to see the fundies start openly throwing out passages of their own scripture. Christianity will eat itself.
"the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful."
Hey Assface, just because there's stuff in the bible that you disagree with doesn't mean it wasn't always in there. Not that I believe that any of the bible stories are true, but you're deliberately picking & choosing which passages to believe. How long before you claim that the "sell all your belongings and give the money to the poor" story about Jesus is fake? After all, it's a pretty liberal idea.
Talk about driving home the fact that religion is just a pretence to justify ones own prejudices, opinions and 'morality'. Hey Assfly, you're not supposed to claim the babbel as literal and then turn around and toss out the parts you don't like.
Pretty soon he will claim the concept of forgiveness is too Liberal to really be in the bible, along with turning the other cheek, feeding the homeless, and stuff..
I may be an atheist, and I may find Jesus to be unnatractive as a whole..but that fictional character DID says some good things, which are obviously in conflict with Assfly's concept of what Jesus SHOULD have said.
Why not just write your own Bible Assflea?
It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor."
Yet rewriting the Bible to validate invisible hand-style free market economics is perfectly acceptable.
You fucking idiot.
Um, IIRC, Jesus did NOT forgive the adulteress without repentence, he told her to sin no more. And dude, he's JESUS, wouldn't he know that in her heart she repented? He did not comment on "capital punishment" in general, only one case, and conservative christians love to pick and choose which of the old "sins" were still sins and which weren't (i.e. bacon cheeseburgers = good, homosexuality = bad), and nothing in the story suggests Jesus was permissive about adultery...once again, he told the woman to "sin no more".
So basically, you're not bothering to demonstrate the passage actually can be interpreted to back up your views, you're just tossing it out. Awesome.
Also, the scholarly part of the article itself is sorta interesting. If you'd left it there (and if it weren't on conservapedia), I might have bought it. But since you contarded fuckwads insist that your whole bible, including the awkward and contraditory bits is 100% true, I've now lost even more respect for you. Which I'd thought was not possible... Wow.
For the record, the ideological objection is not to how liberals "twist" this passage, but how the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful.
Liberal? Really?
image
When you hear yourself speak, does it make sense to you?
Because it sure sounds a lot like self-serving bullshit to everyone else.
The Bible is a document that depicts life in America, predominately in the 1950's, but segueing neatly to the present. Any good or noble passages that the Bible contains were put there surreptitiously by Liberals and/or Satan.
There is no evidence, or to couch it in fundamental cultist terms, there's masses of evidence, that Jesus was and is pro-torture and that He follows His Dad temperamentally, in that He was and still is all in favour of stoning children and is a keen advocate of genocide. Notice how contemporary Jesus sounds. You'd swear, judging by His attitudes and thought processes that He was a modern American chap and not a two thousand year old Jew. The wonders of modern science and modern research institutes like Conservapedia.
Rest easy all ye fundies who are uncomfortable with the good bits in the Bible, they are all a Liberal plot. Yea! Rejoice! For the Lord is a cunt after all.
Unfortunately, he is right that that story is a later addition to the bible, and not in the original manuscripts. (Most study bibles mention this in the margin notes.) He's also an idiot for thinking that anything that doesn't match up with his ideology is a forgery. He got the right answer for all the wrong reasons.
By the time I got to the word "forgery" in the bracketed introduction I knew this had to be Andy Shitfly.
Oh, and what's that the Babble had to say about subtracting or adding anything to the "holy" text? Good thing there's no hell, or Andy would be heading there. ... On second thought it would be great if there was a hell because, again, Andy would be going there.
@ Revered Jeremiah
"Why not just write your own Bible Assflea?"
I think that's exactly what he is doing, Rev.
And this time Jesus is a white Southern, Republican, gun-totin' bad ass who, instead of being crucified on the cross, kicked some Roman ass. After that he went into a cave for three days to curse the unborn Karl Marx, Darwin, Woodrow Wilson and the commie Kenyan usurper. Then daddy called him home so they could make plans on dealing with the socialist Hitler.
Good times, I tell ya, good times.
Andy Schlafly... A man who should spend his days in a rubber padded room, heavily medicated and never should have contact with normal people.
The man is clinically insane!
From my understanding, the authenticity of the passage is dubious, and it's gone more in-depth in a book called "Misquoting Jesus." Of course, fundies wouldn't like that, because the book also talks about how the KJV is not an accurate translation.
According to him, the story is dubious because it doesn't appear to show up until a great deal of time after the Gospels were apparently originally written. Though the author did say, on The Colbert Report, that it is a good story. I think it makes a good point about hypocrisy and man being unfit to judge.
The author of "Misquoting Jesus" is an agnostic, by the way. A crazy fundie once brought that up when I mentioned the book, in some way to discredit it.
Why is it that Schlafly must be against every little thing in the Bible that makes Jesus actually seem like a decent human being?
It's like he's not a Christian so much as he is a conservative that just so happens to be a Christian. His own conservative ideals are more important than Jesus' teachings, and anything in the Bible that he doesn't agree with was just added by "TEH EVIL LIBRULZ" (hell, even if it is a forgery that doesn't mean it doesn't have good ideas).
It's just... depressing.
The oldest versions of the Gospel of John lack the adulteress story, that much is true. However, the rest of the Christian world has adopted it as canon, so I guess that makes Andy a heretic.
Is it just me or does Andy sound like he would be happier as a Jew of Muslim who isn't forced to accept Jebus' liberalism? It seem to me that Andy and his ilk are offended by the Gospels and refuse to follow them.
BTW. Have we seen a draft of Andy's new passage? Is he going to leave it out altogether or is he going to actually claim Jebus said something else like; "Stone everybody and let God sort them out".?
Assfly - Poe's law in all its horrible splendor / splendid horror. Absolutely undistinguishable from a troll. He's not.
Pannic : while there's some disagreement, most scholars are aware of the controversy but consider the story to be authentic. Schlafly's rejection of it has nothing to do with a rational theological judgement.
EMT 420
"Please let this be a trend. I'd love to see the fundies start openly throwing out passages of their own scripture. Christianity will eat itself."
Sorry to disappoint - but it's just the fundies and evangelicals who'd be doing the auto-cuisine....
I'm sorry, but somehow I just can't believe that Jesus would have said "Go ahead and kill the bitch", especially since one of his best friends was a prostitute. But more important than that, it goes against his character in the stories. Granted, he's not as nice of a guy as he's made out to be by sane (as in ones that aren't sociopathic) Christians, but he certainly wouldn't sit around and let someone get brutally killed. He was all about forgiving sinners and hanging around with outcasts. You're taking all the good parts out of the Bible and clinging to all the bad parts and in the process making the worst religion possible. And it reveals more about you than you might want to reveal.
"It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor."
What, like Luke 18:22?
"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Sure, he doesn't say the government, but if the government is founded on Christian values as Andy claims....
Ohnoes! Pinko Luke's at it again! (3:11)
"John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.""
Yep, the entire bible is the 100% true word of the creator of the universe, apart from the parts that don't agree with my ideology, which of course must be forged.
The same scholars who question the "woman in adultery" passage in John also question the fundies' favorite in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy about a woman keeping silent in church. In fact, they question whether 1 Timothy was written by Paul at all. Ehrman speculates that the "woman in adultery" story was in oral circulation (as was most of the NT for a period before it was written down) and was added first as a marginal note, then interpolated into the text itself.
Thanks you Andy.
Here's a new game that we all can play. Find and identify a verse of the Bible and without any knowledge of Hebre, Koine Greek or Latin, if it disagrees with your prejudices, then condemn that verse as lacking authenticity. It means that nothing in the Bible escapes condemnation, ultimately. And this puts paid forever to the lunatic notion that the Bible is inerrant.
As it happens I believe that Andy is right when he says that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a forgery. The real verse is:
" So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John Chap 8)
'Let he who is without sin..' is faulty grammar and unauthentic scripture.
So we have also established that Andy does not know his Bible as well as this agnostic! And that his knowledge of English is abysmal!
@ Rev Jeremiah
"Why not just write your own Bible Assflea? "
I don't think he's quite a bright as Joseph Smith.
Jesus did not forgive without repentance, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did.
I guess you and I interpret "Go, and sin no more" differently then.
Andy, why don't you just admit that reality has a liberal bias and take yourself and your followers out of it. It's not like you enjoy living here anyway.
Questions that Jesus should have asked:
"Where is the man with whom she has sinned?"
According to hebrew law, at that time,
the man and the woman must be killed by
stones together.
Why have you brought her here?
According to that law, at that time,
A woman who has sinned must not be brought
to a temple.
There are other questions too.
I have a question.
That story first appears in a fourth century
book of Luke.
Earlier books of both Luke and John don't
include it.
How did it get from not being anywhere
to the book of Luke, then later into the
book of John?........Hmm, okay, sorry.
I'll shut up now.
In other words, you're throwing out any part of the bible that doesn't agree with your barbaric, violent, hateful worldview.
Hmmm. Seems like the wholly babble ISNT the inerrant word of gawd afterall. From what I remember (I could be wrong), that story didnt enter into anywhere in the babble until the 12th century. That begs quite a bit if skepticism. And some of the books of Paul....were NOT written by Paul. But....I dont suppose any xians will correct those known mistakes in the babble. I bet they will continue to use the stories and books as if they were real....which they are not.
So how's that Conservative Bible coming along, asshole?
I need toilet paper and I'm growing impatient...
I do believe that if every christian started throwing out the parts of the bible they didn't like, we'd throw out any daft notion that the bible was written by, inspired by, or even cared about by an omnipotent sky wizard.
Following that Christianity would basically dissolve to the point where no objective observer could take it seriously.
Now my opinion is that that is symbolically already happening, but they don't literally rewrite the blasted thing, so everyone ignores the things they don't like anyway, whilst pretending to read the same book, but with a million interpretations.
Basically if god wanted to talk to us, clearly expecting people to read a bronze age text , open to personal interpretaion and translated over and over again, is a fucking daft way of doing things.
I'm not against the idea of god, I just expect him to be a little less retarded about stuff and a little more efficient.
What Andy is maintaining is that: "The Bible has been altered for man's purposes, and is not the inspired inerrant Word of God.
This only goes to show that there is no proposition, no matter how true, reasonable and obvious, that will not somewhere have a raving lunatic who supports it.
So is Andy now admitting that the Bible isn't perfect and infallible because it contains the "obviously" false story of the Adulteress?
And really, how can you possibly claim to speak for Jesus, when all he supposedly said is in the Bible? I mean really Andy, your ego is swollen again....oh wait, it's always the size of fucking Saturn.
@ Mister Spak:
Agreed. Isn't it funny how the verses that show Jesus' compassion are 'liberal lies' and the ones that support their overwhelming homophobia are the 'inspired and utterly true words of the one living god'?
And by funny, I mean really sick.
I'm not at all surprised that Andy disagrees with any of the words of Jesus. After all, Andy is a Pauline Christian. A careful reading of Paul's letters clearly shows that he was creating a completely different philosophy then the one Jesus was espousing. Hell, even Jesus' own brother opposed what Paul was preaching, not to mention Peter, who supposedly hung out with the guy for three years.
The truth is, there is nothing in modern Christianity that has anything to do with the Jesus mentioned in the gospels.
OK, so if I can't believe this particular passage of the bible is true, then how can I believe any of it to be true? What's that? I'm supposed to take your word for it which biblical passages are true? Tell you what, I'll just believe that nothing in that book is true until you can prove it beyond any doubt.
I believe Andy has a head hygiene condition that requires circumcision.
Don't worry, Andy, you can wear a headband to cover the scar.
Nobody's saying Jesus permitted adultery or forgave without repentance. As I recall the story, he told the woman to repent, to "go and sin no more".
Also, considering that Jesus said that anyone who wants to follow him should sell all his possessions and give all the money to the poor, uh...yeah. But I bet that's another passage you're clipping, isn't it, Andy?
You ARE right about historical analysis proving that Bible passages describe events that didn't happen, though. You're running in the wrong direction with it. Also, what do you mean "political analysis"? Do you mean "it ain't true cuz it don't agree with me"?
Here we go. Andy Schlafly -- the Christian so Christian he knows Christ better than Christ did.
Asshole, all he did was stop assholes like you from acting like the assholes you are at the cost of a young woman's life. Then he told her to go and sin no more: sounds a lot like repentance to me. There's no claim about older vs. younger wisdom in there.
You're a horrible person, and an even worse Christian, Andy.
Doesn't anyone here at FSTDT get a feeling or a hunch that, although intended to be a serious conservative wiki site, Conservapedia is becoming more and more a conservative poe site?
I know some people here suspect that Andy may be a poe himself, but doesn't anyone think there are people poeing the site intentionally?
I love how Right-wing American Jesus is colored to be exactly like them so they can claim they're stupid because they follow Jesus.
It's funny that their flawless bible is suddenly edited of flawed when they find passages where Jesus is completely opposite to their own mindsets.
@Kat
Doesn't anyone here at FSTDT get a feeling or a hunch that, although intended to be a serious conservative wiki site, Conservapedia is becoming more and more a conservative poe site?
I know some people here suspect that Andy may be a poe himself, but doesn't anyone think there are people poeing the site intentionally?
I've seen people comment that it is a poe site, though I've not seen any evidence of that. As for people deliberately poe-ing (forgive the poor grammar), it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Again, though, I've seen no evidence for it.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but from Acts Chapter 2:
2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (2:44-45)
2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
This is way more communist than anything THE LIBERALS may have in mind for America right now. How does this fit with the Conservative Bible? Is it another forgey? Are there others?
Andy, from one Catholic to another:
You're not a fundamentalist Protestant, so stop acting like one.
So the Bible is only right when it agrees with your ridiculous political leanings? I thought you fundies thought all of it should always be taken literally. Also, he told the woman to "sin no more", so he was not being "permissive" with sinning, he just thought that she deserved a second chance. You really could learn a lot from that passage if you weren't an insane idiot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.