Related Articles

23 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Oh MGK, you rascal. Bravo!

ReplyReply
mygif

That’s one thing I never understood about this story: if the king liked Daniel so much that he was willing to kill all the advisors who were against him, why didn’t he do that FIRST instead of trying to kill Daniel at their behest?

…Or am I not supposed to think about that?

ReplyReply
mygif

Where is the part about 2nd amendment rights?

And will we be renaming the entire chapter of Exodus to “Going Galt”?

NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!

ReplyReply
mygif

That’s one thing I never understood about this story: if the king liked Daniel so much that he was willing to kill all the advisors who were against him, why didn’t he do that FIRST instead of trying to kill Daniel at their behest?

At first, the king was all, like, “Gee if I pass a law, I suppose even I – the King – am honor bound to enforce it. Otherwise, I’ll look like a flaming hypocrite.”

But then God came down and spoke to the King and told him to clear brush on his ranch for forty days and forty nights. And when he returned to his Kingdom, he discovered that “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator”, and he was anointed the Decider by angels on high, and it was decreed that – having won a plurality of the vote of judges appointed by his father – elections have consequences and he can do whatever the hell he damn well pleases.

And that is why, to this day, the land of Judea remains whole and untouched, having never suffered for lack of skilled and wise guidance from a line of autocrats dating straight back to the dawn of time, 6000 years ago.

ReplyReply
mygif
Required Name Here said on October 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Continuing series please? And I’m hoping next up is the parts from Judges where a woman leads the Israelites.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, it adheres to Rule the Third:
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
But not so much Rule the Tenth:
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

ReplyReply
mygif

Prankster & Zifnab: The book of Esther explains that under Persian law, an edict of the king could not be undone/repealed/annulled with a simple counter-command. Presumably this was to prevent the king/s from issuing too many edicts without thinking through their consequences first.

In the story of Esther, the command to permit the slaughter of the Jews in Persia was not rescinded, but a counter-command allowing the Jews to fight back was issued.

In Daniel, the king was apparently unaware that Daniel’s faith would preclude him from worshiping an idol; he knew Daniel was Jewish but apparently Daniel didn’t make a big deal of his faith in public to avoid more problems like this.

MKG: I gotta say, I admire the sheer ballsiness of these guys. If you (rhetorical) have gotta commit soul-damning blasphemy, this is the way to do it; none of that wimpy carving 666 on your forehead, getting devil girls tattooed on your arms, or flashing horn signs for these conservatives.

And I post that as a socially conservative Christian.

ReplyReply
mygif

These guys are going to be SO surprised when they get to Hell.

ReplyReply
mygif

Or “Why I Should Write the Bible, by MGK” Part One. I look forward to the bits where Dr Strange parts the Red Sea or when Deadpool replaced the water-into-wine with grape kool-aid…

ReplyReply
mygif
Lawnmower Boy said on October 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Conservapedia: Jonestown or Waco? You be the judge.

ReplyReply
mygif

24 At the king’s command, the liberal union members who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in…

Hang on, they accused him of praying to God. Which he was doing. Nothing false there.

They had a legitimate case under the law of the time. The fact that they were a bunch of sandal-wearing pinko liberals doesn’t change that.

ReplyReply
mygif

See, Will, where you went wrong there was applying logic. That has a clear lieberal bias and is not longer used in this Brave New World of Conservapedia.

ReplyReply
mygif

Wait a minute, so they are basically rewriting books? Yeah, there is no way this could wrong.

ReplyReply
mygif

I especially like that they’ve decided on the KJV as a base for their translation. It’s fairly widely acknowledged that, while it is one of the most poetic translations out there, it’s also one of the least accurate. Conservapedia also seems to have fairly lax standards for citations.

ReplyReply
mygif
DistantFred said on October 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

So nice to see people who don’t get that Christianity used to be a religion of the downtrodden that gained popularity with the hope that their lives may suck now, but heaven awaits those of piety and patience.

ReplyReply
mygif

The thing that really blows my mind is that they’re casually admitting that the bible isn’t the inerrant word of God, but rather something that’s been subject to revision over the years. Revision…by LIBERALS!!!!

Seriously, this is going to piss off a LOT of moderate and even conservative Christians, people who otherwise might have been on their side politically. I really think the hardcore conservatives crossed the line a while back, and they’re going to have a tough time winning back the respect and sympathy of 85% of the American people.

ReplyReply
mygif
NCallahan said on October 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

I can’t wait to see the full list of segments they want to remove. It’ll be so handy to have a complete Biblical reading list for my future kids.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mary Warner said on October 6th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

What’s going to happen to all the dirty stuff in the Song Of Solomon?

ReplyReply
mygif
Joysweeper said on October 6th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Conservatizing the Bible?

That would make an excellent thing to speculate about if it wasn’t apparently being done. Oy.

ReplyReply
mygif

5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against Daniel, unless we use the power of the state to crush his Christian faith.”

I see what you did there.

ReplyReply
mygif

buzz: Took the words right outta my mouth. I suppose it doesn’t serve to underestimate human stupidity.

ReplyReply
mygif
Sofa King said on October 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

And of course the King James was commissioned by a dirty queer, so of course it must be cleaned up.

ReplyReply
mygif
Consumer Unit 5012 said on October 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Lawnmower Boy said:
Conservapedia: Jonestown or Waco? You be the judge.

From my own observations (and those of the jokesters at RationalWiki), I’d say “North Korea”. They’ve got a Maximum Leader whose word is NOT the Word of God, it’s MUCH more important than that. They’ve got a gang of fanatical enforcers squashing all deviance. They’ve got a bizarre political philosophy that’s slowly strangling the life out of the place, and they they’ve got a populace who can’t even see the bars of the cage they’re in.

It’s a perfect microcosm of authoritarian beliefs taken to their logical conclusion, without the usual body-count.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments