Automoderated users, edit
3,552
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 22:15, October 7, 2009
, 22:15, October 7, 2009→Good to see Andy Schlafly thinks he's more cut-out for God's job than God
Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.
Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.
:You're not confused and you know it. This has nothing to do with "harmonizing" the Bible with conservative "doctrine." The project is explained quite clearly on the page, and on this talk page. The fact that you call conservative reasoning and logic "doctrine" just demonstrates that you don't understand conservatism and don't understand what we're trying to do here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
==The Example==
==The Example==