The Lord's message to Liberals

[xiod]

Isaiah 32:5-8

5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Like I said on the other thread, "liberal" in the KJV means "generous".

This verse is about unpleasant people pretending to be generous so that people won't see how unpleasant they are.

It has nothing to do with the term "liberal" as we are using it here.

Now take your vile little fallacy of equivocation and play somewhere else.

 

[Murmur]

I agree, Karl... Wrong context.

 

[seebs]

Indeed, this is obvious even within the passage. Why should the vile person not be called liberal? Because a vile person is not really liberal.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Isaiah 32:5-8

5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.

6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.

8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

In modern English this reads:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]A fool will no longer be called noble, nor a villain said to be honorable. [/font]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For fools speak folly, and their minds plot iniquity: to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink. [/font]

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The villainies of villains are evil; they devise wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words, even when the plea of the needy is right.[/font]

But those who are noble plan noble things, and by noble things they stand.

It's so important to get a decent, up to date translation, 'cause however beautiful the language in the KJV the words don't always mean the same to us as they did to the people who translated it.

By the way, what point were you trying to make xiod?

Karin

 

[tulc]

Man I must need more coffee, I didn't get the impression that was a bad thing.
"8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." Sounds good to me!
tulc(who has actually been called vile, and laughed all night afterwards!)

 

[Mustaphile]

This is a funny thread.

 

[Gwynne]

Gotta love that the KJV says us liberals are so wonderful!

 

[Shane Roach]

It seems to me this verse was posted and immediately the assumption was that the originator of the post didn't understand it. I have no idea whether they did or not, but the lesson here is that there are those who pose as "liberal" in the sense of being charitable, and yet are not, and that eventually their subterfuge will be made clear. It also seems to indicate that there is something about the ruse of hiding falsehoods concerning God in the rhetoric of being charitable or "liberal".

Whether or not the originator of the post understands it, it seems to me the verse could stand to be discussed in terms other than expressing derision for the one who posted it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sorry, Shane, but it was pretty clear to me, given the title of the OP, that this is a "you liberals are all vile and God's agin' you" posting. It was a full toss and completely deserved to be hit to the boundary.*


*Note for inhabitants of non cricketing nations. A full toss is a ball that does not bounce before reaching the batsman. Such balls, unless they are Yorkers**, are very easy to send to the boundary for six.***

**A ball which hits the ground just at the batsman's feet, making it difficult to do anything with. They lead to a lot of batsmen returning to the pavilion for a cup of tea rather earlier than they had hoped.

***Six runs are scored for a ball which is hit over the boundary of the pitch without bouncing.

 

[tulc]

*Note for inhabitants of non cricketing nations. A full toss is a ball that does not bounce before reaching the batsman. Such balls, unless they are Yorkers**, are very easy to send to the boundary for six.***

**A ball which hits the ground just at the batsman's feet, making it difficult to do anything with. They lead to a lot of batsmen returning to the pavilion for a cup of tea rather earlier than they had hoped.

***Six runs are scored for a ball which is hit over the boundary of the pitch without bouncing.

May I say on behalf of the rest of us: "Huh?"
tulc(who will never understand cricket or why people like to watch baseball)

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I don't understand it either. Don't think my son has learnt to play it at school, so he probably hasn't got a clue. Not sure my husband knows that much about it either and he's 100% English.

 

[Polycarp1]

This is nearly as bad as the passage that someone, I think Wolseley used to quote -- with a twinkle in his eye, to be sure:
[bible]Ecclesiastes 10:2[/bible]

 

[seebs]

Shane, the poster in question made it clear (especially by his use of the same passage elsewhere) that he intended this passage as a direct attack on "liberal Christians", and did so based on the exact kind of literalist prooftexting that the liberals are objecting to. The irony is beautiful.

 

[Polycarp1]

Sorry, Shane, but it was pretty clear to me, given the title of the OP, that this is a "you liberals are all vile and God's agin' you" posting. It was a full toss and completely deserved to be hit to the boundary.*


*Note for inhabitants of non cricketing nations. A full toss is a ball that does not bounce before reaching the batsman. Such balls, unless they are Yorkers**, are very easy to send to the boundary for six.***

**A ball which hits the ground just at the batsman's feet, making it difficult to do anything with. They lead to a lot of batsmen returning to the pavilion for a cup of tea rather earlier than they had hoped.

***Six runs are scored for a ball which is hit over the boundary of the pitch without bouncing.

Or, translated into non-British English, "posting a prooftext where the meaning of the words is misconstrued is just not cricket!"