Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So Colbert did a fairly friendly interview of the author. But he so got him. (Paraphrases follow)

Colbert: You do believe the literal truth of the Bible? The Bible is the inerant word of God?

Author: Yes.

Colbert: So should we stone gays?

A: ...

Colbert: Because it says that is what we should do in leviticus.

A: ... Who are your writers?

And then he just dodged.

And I liked when he said that he wasn't a fundamentalist.

A: A fundamentalist means that you are just shutting things out. There are fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist atheists, fundamentalist secularists...

No fundamentalist Buddhists, ha! But WTF is with the last one?

And then when asked what the purpose of life was, he totally copped out.

A: Your purpose is to live your own life, the life God wanted you to live.

:rolleyes:

[joobz]

So Colbert did a fairly friendly interview of the author. But he so got him. (Paraphrases follow)

Colbert: You do believe the literal truth of the Bible? The Bible is the inerant word of God?

Author: Yes.

Colbert: So should we stone gays?

A: ...

Colbert: Because it says that is what we should do in leviticus.

A: ... Who are your writers?
That was the answer that really took me off guard. The guy tried really hard to present the "christianity is cool man" message, but that response really didn't fit with the persona being presented.

What I want to know is how did be mean for it to come off?

Was it a joke? How was it supposed to be funny?
Was he accusing his writers of being gay or jews?
Did he think that such an obvious question wouldn't be asked?

Or was he truly thinking he was in for a snow job, and got caught on some candid camera thing?

[Hokulele]

Link?

[joobz]

Link?
sorry
I can't get my DVR to fit into the intertubes.

[Hokulele]

sorry
I can't get my DVR to fit into the intertubes.


Ah, I will search for a transcript after some time has passed. Thanks.

[Dark Jaguar]

The idea of that "Who are your writers?" comment, which was said in the tone of him laughing a little, seemed to be that his question was a "bad joke" and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. That is, he was saying his writers were bad.

Colbert's comeback that he had no writers tonight except the inerrant word of god was perfect if you ask me.

I actually muted my TV after listening to more of his rhetoric because it was bringing back some painful memories. Nothing of what he said was "new" at all. It was the same old garbage I listened to in the mid 1990's. The packaging wasn't even new. I recognized it all. The "I used to think this but then I realized that God" story, the "wow isn't God amazing that he made all this just to make us tiny insignificant things?" bit, the jab at atheists and "secularists" as being dogmatic (I guess a few of them are, but I've never met any that were dogmatic about their atheism and secularism itself). Finally the whole concept seemed to be "you can live your life just fine because god made you to like what you were meant to do" stuff, which is great except it still leaves him to come up to people and say "you must be unhappy because I don't think this is what god made you to do". It's all old, it's all garbage, and Steven at least managed to nail him on the point of how the faithful pick and choose what to take literally and what to take metaphorically.

[joobz]

The idea of that "Who are your writers?" comment, which was said in the tone of him laughing a little, seemed to be that his question was a "bad joke" and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. That is, he was saying his writers were bad.

Colbert's comeback that he had no writers tonight except the inerrant word of god was perfect if you ask me.
I had it on in the background (i'm grading homeworks_. So I couldn't judge tone to much because I wasn't watching body language.

I do think that Colbert managed to keep the interview light, which is fully appropriate.

[KingMerv00]

I saw it. Not bad. I wish Colbert had pressed him on the stoning gays thing.

[halofish2000]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

[Tumblehome]

The guest wasn't talking about any other cultures/religions. He was talking specifically about the Bible.

I wish I saw it.


ETA: And I like the title of his book, as if only Christians can lead a purpose-driven life.

[bokonon]

The guest wasn't talking about any other cultures/religions. He was talking specifically about the Bible.

I wish I saw it.


ETA: And I like the title of his book, as if only Christians can lead a purpose-driven life.
Comedy Central re-runs the previous day's show about 5 times the following day, so I'm planning to look for it today. Not having yet seen the show, I take the "who are your writers?" question as a comment on the writers' strike -- Colbert is not supposed to be coming up with pre-scripted insights, he's just supposed to be simmering at the "Tell us about your book" level.

There is a book out called "The Reason-Driven Life," which is (obviously) a response to "The Purpose-Driven Life." It takes TP-DL chapter-by-chapter, and shines a light on the fundie foundation it teeters atop.

[SirPhilip]

A lot, including that author apparently, are not aware Colbert is a Sunday School teacher.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

It might be callous but I don't care about the fairness of Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian and Assyrian law for the simple reason that no one is trying to impose these laws upon me.

LLH

[SirPhilip]

I saw it. Not bad. I wish Colbert had pressed him on the stoning gays thing. He got his point across, which is simply that the author is an imbecile marketing a book.

[Nogbad]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

Varied hugely - for example the Egyptians had no particular issue with homosexuality whereas the Hittites made the Israelites look like pussycats.

[tsg]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

Tu Quoque.

[Foster Zygote]

A lot, including that author apparently, are not aware Colbert is a Sunday School teacher.

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far?

[tsg]

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far?

Not presuming to speak for SirPhilip, but I think the point was that Colbert being a Sunday School teacher means he is more familiar with the bible than the average talk show host, a fact the author, a man touting the bible as the inerrant word of god, perhaps wasn't prepared for.

[Dark Jaguar]

Wait... seriously?

[A Christian Sceptic]

It might be callous but I don't care about the fairness of Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian and Assyrian law for the simple reason that no one is trying to impose these laws upon me.

LLH

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

[joobz]

Wait... seriously?
About colbert being a sunday school teacher? I think so.
He's got a very healthy religious view.

from this website http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/
And while deciding whether or not a joke is appropriate, he said that he asks himself, "'Does it disrespect the concept of their belief?' and if it does, then I really don't think I can do it... Because who am I to say that what they believe is wrong? But if they're doing things, using religion as a tool in some other behavior... y'know, hypocritical or destructive... then it's fair game."

I think he best summed it up with "I don't believe I can't disagree with my church."

[cloudshipsrule]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

[This Guy]

I can never find my irony meter when I really need it :(

[Cello Man]

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

The verse which Christians use to condemn homosexuality comes from Leviticus, in the Old Testament:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#13)

That's the same book which condemns eating shrimp and wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Both are condemned as "abomination". Leviticus doesn't go out of its way to say that homosexuality is a greater abomination, though. They're given equal rank.

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

1) Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.

2) Why cling to one old verse and toss out the others? If you realize how silly it is to think of certains types of seafood and mixed fibers as "abominations", why is it still acceptable to use the same ridiculous source as a justification for anti-gay bigotry?

[Nogbad]

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

That is a fair point. However, it was only relatively recently that OT leaning laws were replaced with more secular laws. There is therefore a tendancy to view statements by more fundamentalists religious types as somehow heralding an imminent return to branding adulterers, incarcerating homosexuals and burning witches. My own view, and I suspect that of the said fundamentalists, is that such a return is extremely unlikely.

[tsg]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

... said the man being forced to read at gunpoint.


Door's that way --------> don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Hokulele]

That is a fair point. However, it was only relatively recently that OT leaning laws were replaced with more secular laws. There is therefore a tendancy to view statements by more fundamentalists religious types as somehow heralding an imminent return to branding adulterers, incarcerating homosexuals and burning witches. My own view, and I suspect that of the said fundamentalists, is that such a return is extremely unlikely.


Not to mention that the persecution of homosexuals is well documented in the New Testament.

[skeptical]

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

Holy crap Batman, I have used the exact "you don't see anyone picketing Red Lobster" comment many times myself. :)

Usually, the response is either "what the heck are you talking about", because the person has not even read the surrounding verses and doesn't know that shellfish are also an abomination. (among other things)

Or, the person goes away in a huff, because they realize how ridiculous they look.

I was thinking of making a t-shirt with a picture of guy holding a bible and the phrase "Abominating Gays and Lobster since 1500 BC". (and yes, I'm pretty sure "abominating" isn't a real world, I just like the way it sounds)

[Cello Man]

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

[SirPhilip]

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far? His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith. A rare event and refreshing: a blast of cold fragrant air onto the public and coming from the other fence.

Say, shot of cognac, you who tails me like a terrier?

[A Christian Sceptic]

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

Wow- I hope those shrimp haters don't try to impose their beliefs against shrimp on me. :)

[Tanstaafl]

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?


There are a variety of attempts to work the concept of the First Commandment into law.

Mandatory school prayer, for example.

[AK-Dave]

The video can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml for those who have not seen it.

-david

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you?


Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.

Republican Party of Texas Platform - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

I guess I would say laws and not necessarily the punishments.

LLH

[shadron]

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

That's sort of the point, isn't it? Fundamentalist Christians, as opposed to other sorts, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That presumes that it (whatever it was at the time) speaks equally to us as it did to the Jews returning from Assyria and the Jews living under Roman rule. In this, tradition is a very strong force; education and broadening experience (gained with travel and interaction with others) is mush less so. So, the silly rules (measured by our standards) have the same force as the sane ones; they must be obeyed. Fundamentalist Christians have removed the ability of any interpretation of the Bible. Oh, you can argue about translations and such, but interpretation? Nope - no can do. Word of God, remember?

As for the interpretation (for slightly less hidebound fundamentalists) of a new dispensation in the NT, sure, it may be a few hundred years newer but it's still 2000 years old now, and lots of water is under the bridge. St. Paul's admonition that everyone should be like him (that is, unmarried and chaste, presumably) presumes God was soon expected, but that has not been the case. One can see what following that dictum lead the Shakers to.

I can only presume that the question above demonstrates a lack of fundamentalist zeal on your part, CS. I hope that is what you meant to display.

[sthomson]

His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith. A rare event and refreshing: a blast of cold fragrant air onto the public and coming from the other fence.

Say, shot of cognac, you who tails me like a terrier?

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing."

Umm...yeah, I still don't get it.

[Foster Zygote]

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing."

Umm...yeah, I still don't get it.

It's typical of his posts. The last bit is, I believe, a shot at me: an accusation that I am somehow following him about the forum. I got the same silliness from Plumjam a while back. The price is fail.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I guess I would say laws and not necessarily the punishments.

LLH

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?

[Tricky]

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.
Now let's be fair. That might not be about homosexuals at all. It could mean that men lie with male buddies about things like fishing and how many women they've had, but they lie with with females about where they were last night and how much they've had to drink.

[SirPhilip]

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing." Umm...yeah, I still don't get it. Well then, you don't get a cookie.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001

LLH

[skeptical]

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).


Man, that is sweeeet!

That falls into the "things I wish I had thought of category".

Thanks for the link, I had not seen it before.

[A Christian Sceptic]

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001

LLH

Thanks - that was very informative.

[SirPhilip]

It's typical of his posts. The last bit is, I believe, a shot at me: an accusation that I am somehow following him about the forum. I got the same silliness from Plumjam a while back. The price is fail. I offered you a shot, but I offered him cookies. Now I offer you both a shot and cookies if you can win this challenge. Many men have died of migraines, some are headless because of it. You must bear the stress of thinking this hard, summon every neuron to attention, and answer what probably qualifies as an allegory:

Item One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

Item Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life)

Victory is yours for the taking men.

[Cello Man]

Christian Sceptic,

Here's another pertinent link. Texas had an anti-sodomy law on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2003. You're curious to know which Old Testament laws are being forced upon people, well there you go. The Bible holds so much sway down here that my own home state had managed to pass an unconstitutional religiously motivated law.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Regarding my previous post in this thread: Imagine if Texas banned Red Lobster from operating their business in the state. Imagine that their justification for doing so was adhering to the exact same cultural reference that inspired the anti-sodomy law.

Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?

[Mark A. Siefert]

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws."

From Luke 16:16

16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.

(The John in question is John The Baptist)

However in the very next verse, Luke 16:17-18

16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


Then there is this chestnut from Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:14

3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

However, Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 5:18:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

So essentially, Jesus did away all that barbarism demanded by God in the Old Testament AND gave them his complete stamp of approval! Jesus essentially invented the concept of Doublethink long before Orwell wrote 1984. Either that, of the "Virgin" (yeah, right) Mary should have named her son "Sybil."

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")

The Bible is literally, unerring, "Word of God" only when it suits the believer.

[Bob Klase]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

And you're trying to do some good by..... ?

[Bob Klase]

The video can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml for those

It can be found here without any further clicking:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=148506&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

[joobz]

I offered you a shot, but I offered him cookies. Now I offer you both a shot and cookies if you can win this challenge. Many men have died of migraines, some are headless because of it. You must bear the stress of thinking this hard, summon every neuron to attention, and answer what probably qualifies as an allegory:

Item One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

Item Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life)

Victory is yours for the taking men.
I worry about you. Your posts read like you are trying to emulate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

We can understand your point or you can write coherently, but we can never both understand your point and have you write coherently.:p

[A Christian Sceptic]

Christian Sceptic,

Here's another pertinent link. Texas had an anti-sodomy law on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2003.


Good


You're curious to know which Old Testament laws are being forced upon people, well there you go.


Well - actually I wasn't sure what was being meant. It's clear now.


The Bible holds so much sway down here that my own home state had managed to pass an unconstitutional religiously motivated law.


Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?


Regarding my previous post in this thread: Imagine if Texas banned Red Lobster from operating their business in the state. Imagine that their justification for doing so was adhering to the exact same cultural reference that inspired the anti-sodomy law.


I wish I would have taken advantage of the Red Lobster all you can eat crab legs. But the one summer I passed it by they decided never to do it again. :(


Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?

I've never gotten a simple answer to this very same question. I personally don't think Christians need to be going back to the OT when they can go directly to what Jesus taught. But that's just me.

[fuelair]

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?
Almost certain it would be the Gay Marriage thing. What would the Texas Republican Party do if Sodomy were outlawed???:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[sthomson]

Well then, you don't get a cookie.

I don't want a cookie; I want forum posters to converse clearly and honestly.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Almost certain it would be the Gay Marriage thing. What would the Texas Republican Party do if Sodomy were outlawed???:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

haha. Well - actually, according to that link above - Gay Marriage is a seperate issue on their platform.

Although the CNN article describes Texas law as being targetted for homosexuals only.

[Tumblehome]

Comedy Central re-runs the previous day's show about 5 times the following day...


Looked for it and caught it. Thanks. :) Another priceless interview by the Lincolnish one.

My take on the "Who are your writers?" question was that it was like "Where the hell did you pull that from?", as if the author didn't think the bible said that, or at least didn't want to admit it. Another lie for Jesus, maybe.

[Piscivore]

I wish I would have taken advantage of the Red Lobster all you can eat crab legs. But the one summer I passed it by they decided never to do it again. :(

My fault, I'm sorry.

[bokonon]

Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?
It isn't about Leviticus. It's about in-group and out-group, and using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to say the things you want to say with the reverb cranked up. People who feel threatened by someone else's sexual preferences get to sock-puppet God as their spokesperson to condemn it. The in-group bonds, and the out-group is demonized.

The dietary in-group was once a powerful force too (else, why would it be written in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran?), but that train has moved on somewhat. Some Jews and Muslims still observe prohibitions on pork (I don't know about shellfish, crustaceans, catfish, and cephalopods), but Christians by and large have outgrown that particular observance.

I know there is a lot of condemnation of "a la carte Christians," both from those who fancy themselves as nonbelievers and from those who fancy themselves as true believers, but I regard the a la carte Christian as more enlightened than his fundamentalist brothers. Granted, many of them don't KNOW they're a la carte Christians -- if you told them the Bible forbade the eating of shrimp, they'd give you a blank stare, followed by the "Jesus said that stuff didn't apply to us" speech, followed by another blank stare when you pointed out that he most certainly did not. Nevertheless, they've taken the first step to ethical maturity, using reason and conscience to determine an ethical course of action, rather than childishly and unthinkingly adhering to a long list of prohibitions that can't be rationally justified.

To me, that's progress. Insignificant, but progress nevertheless.

[skeptical]

Christian Sceptic,

Here's another pertinent link. Texas had an anti-sodomy law on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2003. You're curious to know which Old Testament laws are being forced upon people, well there you go. The Bible holds so much sway down here that my own home state had managed to pass an unconstitutional religiously motivated law.

And for those keeping score at home, that case was 5-4, and was decided when O'Connor was on the bench.

If a similar case came before today's court, there is not a doubt in my mind that it would be 5-4 the other way.

This is the problem with the "police power", it gives states the right to regulate morals, so it can, in theory, reach even private activities between private actors even when there is no demonstrably negative effect to anyone else. So then you have to find a fundamental right in the constitution to overturn it, and there is always a fist fight about what rights are in there.

It would be far better if states were only allowed to regulate demonstrably harmful activities and not just any old thing they think is immoral.(ala Jefferson's "picks my pocket or breaks my leg") But, that is another thread.

[A Christian Sceptic]

My fault, I'm sorry.

I forgive you.

I've found another source for all you can eat crab legs so all is good. :)

[SirPhilip]

I worry about you. Your posts read like you are trying to emulate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We can understand your point or you can write coherently, but we can never both understand your point and have you write coherently.:p Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?

[thaiboxerken]

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?




:rolleyes:

[wolfgirl]

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?Just for the record, I have never communicated with you before (to my knowledge), so I have no reason to be disagreeable. I, however, also have a really hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say in your posts. They don't seem to make much sense or be very coherent. Just so you have another opinion...

[sthomson]

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct?

Incorrect, unless you're ignoring the second definition for allegorical purposes.

[Cello Man]

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")

The Bible is literally, unerring, "Word of God" only when it suits the believer.

Exactly my point. Christians shouldn't point to a source of "absolute truth" which is anything but consistent. The Bible is like a Gitmo detainee: After you torture it enough you can get it to say anything.

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

Is there any rational reason to discriminate against gays that isn't religiously motivated? I defy anyone to come up with a single example.

It isn't about Leviticus. It's about in-group and out-group, and using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to say the things you want to say with the reverb cranked up.

Exactly my point, by way of rhetorical question.

People who feel threatened by someone else's sexual preferences get to sock-puppet God as their spokesperson to condemn it. The in-group bonds, and the out-group is demonized.

Yup. As the saying goes...I think your God is imaginary because he hates all the same people you do.

[SirPhilip]

Incorrect, unless you're ignoring the second definition for allegorical purposes.

This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) an allegory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory).

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life) is not. Not possibly an allegory. It's not an allegory. It's a book a millionaire pastor wrote about one.

It's obvious I wasn't referring to the latter. Any thoughts?

[SirPhilip]

Just for the record, I have never communicated with you before (to my knowledge), so I have no reason to be disagreeable. I, however, also have a really hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say in your posts. They don't seem to make much sense or be very coherent. Just so you have another opinion...

(Shrugs)

Try harder? There were no errors on my part.

[joobz]

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Moe, where's the cheese? Where's the cheese?


Oh here it is:
"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?

All Kidding aside, I was making a light-hearted jest and wasn't meant to be insulting. I apologize if you were offended.

But realize, that you do have a tendancy to shift tone and context without any warning while simultaneously leaving out key elements of your train of thought. This all makes it rather hard for anyone to interpret what you are saying.

[sthomson]

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm).

[SirPhilip]

But realize, that you do have a tendancy to shift tone and context without any warning while simultaneously leaving out key elements of your train of thought. This all makes it rather hard for anyone to interpret what you are saying. Valid point, I probably shouldn't so sharply. My paragraphs are compact, omit descriptors, and outline keys. Those on the ball respond with additional valid observations or points. Those aren't are forced to. This is to avoid bickering, very frequent here. It provokes it also, and I'm requested to think for them when they should beforehand.

[SonOfLaertes]

Just for the record, I have never communicated with you before (to my knowledge), so I have no reason to be disagreeable. I, however, also have a really hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say in your posts. They don't seem to make much sense or be very coherent. Just so you have another opinion...

seconded

[SirPhilip]

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm). But I couldn't have been referring to Rick Warren's tripe as one. I assume you know the difference.

[Tanstaafl]

I forgive you.

I've found another source for all you can eat crab legs so all is good. :)


Whatever you do, don't tell Pisci where it is!!!!

[sthomson]

Regardless, your point (as it seems to be) is still wrong. Colbert (the actor, not the character) would, I imagine, believe strongly in the importance of faith.

Otherwise, I give up.

[SirPhilip]

I don't want a cookie; I want forum posters to converse clearly and honestly. Well, then have a drink on me.

[Almo]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

But when people say "The Bible is the literal, correct word of God," then they deserve this. Leviticus says we should stone gays. It only takes one counterexample to disprove a generalization of this type.

[SirPhilip]

Regardless, your point (as it seems to be) is still wrong. Colbert (the actor, not the character) would, I imagine, believe strongly in the importance of faith. Otherwise, I give up. Hm? I pointed out Colbert, who is privately religious, maturely understands what the Bible properly is. The flamboyant author doesn't, and the interview is a stark contrast on many levels between two sensibilities, the privately religious and the superficially.

[slingblade]

Thoughts?

Don't worry so. When, if ever, you demonstrate you've had any thoughts worth listening to, we will speedily let you know.


We promise.

[Piscivore]

Whatever you do, don't tell Pisci where it is!!!!

Hush, you.

So, CS? Shall we do lunch? :D

[SirPhilip]

Don't worry so. When, if ever, you demonstrate you've had any thoughts worth listening to, we will speedily let you know.
We promise. Before you go, can you explain what those weren't? Apparently I was wrongheaded about something, and I'm very curious.

[slingblade]

Before you go, can you explain what those weren't? Apparently I was wrongheaded about something, and I'm very curious.

No, don't worry about it, really. It's all right. Someday it will all seem very silly, and we'll all be here to comfort you and laugh together about how silly it really was. Shhhh, now. Shhhh.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Hush, you.

So, CS? Shall we do lunch? :D

:D

[SirPhilip]

No, don't worry about it, really. It's all right. Someday it will all seem very silly, and we'll all be here to comfort you and laugh together about how silly it really was. Shhhh, now. Shhhh. Of course that's the problem, taking everything way too seriously. Secularists should learn from Colbert, and that is a valid point to consider.

[Sefarst]

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

The verse which Christians use to condemn homosexuality comes from Leviticus, in the Old Testament:



That's the same book which condemns eating shrimp and wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Both are condemned as "abomination". Leviticus doesn't go out of its way to say that homosexuality is a greater abomination, though. They're given equal rank.

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

1) Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.

2) Why cling to one old verse and toss out the others? If you realize how silly it is to think of certains types of seafood and mixed fibers as "abominations", why is it still acceptable to use the same ridiculous source as a justification for anti-gay bigotry?
I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

[PBTree]

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?



Methinks you should investigate your family tree SirPhilip. It would not surprise if you discovered one of your ancestors was one of the 'supposed' bible authors. If you added a few thee's and thou's, plus several begats into that lot above, it could be included just after mathew, mark, luke, john, as philip. ;)

I join the list of those swimming in the river of obfuscation.

[TShaitanaku]

Varied hugely - for example the Egyptians had no particular issue with homosexuality whereas the Hittites made the Israelites look like pussycats.

That is what so few understand today when an "eye for an eye" seems rather extremist. In the time it was made law, slight offenses (real or perceived) could, and often did, involve retributions that involved not only the slaying of entire families, neighbors and even villages but the destruction of all thier livestock, fouling the wells and salting the fields. Saying that the most a person could do was retribute what they themselves actually lost, was generally considered unusually merciful and lenient, and above all just.

[godofpie]

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm).
I liked yours better.

[TShaitanaku]

I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

Romans 1:24-28 speaks of some being visited with (among other things) "unnatural desires" as a result of turning away from God, but it does not say anything about whether such are always sinful, nor especially after the context in which you seem to be using them, that such should be punished in any particular fashion. God does not punish them for being homosexual nor does He ordain that other humans punish homosexuals for their actions, what He does is visit this upon some men as a punishment for turning away from Him and lying about His word. To me it rather brings to mind the various "men of the cloth" and "christian" politician who have recently been outted after having distorted God's message of love to their own glorification and worldly enrichment (divine irony if you will).

In context, Romans 1:24-32

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The sin is the turning away from God and the distortion of His word. The depraved mind etc., is the punishment which God visited upon these men. There is nothing here which indicates that all homosexuality is the result of such punishment, nor that such should ever be treated as a sin or abomination in itself, ...at least not to my reading and understanding of this particular passage.

[SirPhilip]

Methinks you should investigate your family tree SirPhilip. It would not surprise if you discovered one of your ancestors was one of the 'supposed' bible authors. If you added a few thee's and thou's, plus several begats into that lot above, it could be included just after mathew, mark, luke, john, as philip. ;) I join the list of those swimming in the river of obfuscation. Anyone else want to fail?

[joobz]

Anyone else want to fail?
Don't take it personally. People here tend to be a bit rough on the unclear or irrational. I had a similar hard time when I first came to the threads. I never really considered my philosophy on life before and never really critically analyzed my faith. I was guilty of similar conceits, and when I first came here I made much the same mistakes as most people who haven't really thought through the arguments. I was rash and had called athiesm a faith, that athiests were arrogant. I thought such an observation was such a novel condemnation. I quickly learned better. I received hostility and derision. It inspired me to learn more about the debates. Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible.

I simply request that you give yourself a chance to learn and realize that nobody is above learning and improvement.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible.


Just wondering - you can PM me if you don't want to post.

What were you before coming here? What depiction of God in the bible are you certain god is not like? Jesus? The OT depiction? Both? A particular denominations opinions of it all? Are you looking at other faiths or religions or have you considered any others or investigated them? What have you found out so far?

[NobbyNobbs]

Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws."


I've heard this several times myself. What I've never heard is exactly where in the NT it says "Hey, you know all that stuff about the shellfish and keeping slaves? Forget about all that. But keep the one about the gays, ok?"

Can anybody cite a verse?

[Hokulele]

The sin is the turning away from God and the distortion of His word. The depraved mind etc., is the punishment which God visited upon these men. There is nothing here which indicates that all homosexuality is the result of such punishment, nor that such should ever be treated as a sin or abomination in itself, ...at least not to my reading and understanding of this particular passage.


1 Corinthians makes it pretty clear.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


This is from the RSV, but other translations often use homosexuals instead of sexual perverts. The NLT is the most explicit stating that both male prostitutes and homosexuals are unrighteous.

[joobz]

\'sJust wondering - you can PM me if you don't want to post.

What were you before coming here? What depiction of God in the bible are you certain god is not like? Jesus? The OT depiction? Both? A particular denominations opinions of it all? Are you looking at other faiths or religions or have you considered any others or investigated them? What have you found out so far?
greek orthodox and catholic. I got to see first hand how these two near identical churches could find things to argue over. I had /have friends who were pentacostal, methodist, baptist, "non denominational"... I was most comfortable with greek orthodox, but I just felt the major premise faulty. That you need jesus to go to heaven. That everyone who didn't have jesus would go to hell. Such a thought was horrible beyond imagine to me. Also, I never liked the magical parts of the faith. I've been in science long enough to have seen nothing that could make me think such things as possible.

If I'm anything, it's a diest. Really, shedding my faith was a burden off my shoulders.

[fuelair]

(Shrugs)

Try harder? There were no errors on my part.
My, we do have a high opinion of ourselves do we not!!! If only it were deserved! Points to slingblade and wolfgirl and others. Your serve.

[A Christian Sceptic]

\'s
greek orthodox and catholic. I got to see first hand how these two near identical churches could find things to argue over. I had /have friends who were pentacostal, methodist, baptist, "non denominational"... I was most comfortable with greek orthodox, but I just felt the major premise faulty. That you need jesus to go to heaven.

That everyone who didn't have jesus would go to hell. Such a thought was horrible beyond imagine to me. Also, I never liked the magical parts of the faith. I've been in science long enough to have seen nothing that could make me think such things as possible.

If I'm anything, it's a diest. Really, shedding my faith was a burden off my shoulders.

OK - thanks very much for sharing. I've never been to a Greek Orthodox church. My wife and I actually thought it about joining one recently but the closest one is to far away. We went through a period of trying to find a church that better suits our beliefs and coincidently we found out that we believe in alot of the same theology they do - particularly many of their views on the atonement. Before this last summer I had never really known much about them. They have a Greek Festival every year I think we'll attend to try some of their food and some of the dances and shows they put on.

[joobz]

OK - thanks very much for sharing. I've never been to a Greek Orthodox church. My wife and I actually thought it about joining one recently but the closest one is to far away. We went through a period of trying to find a church that better suits our beliefs and coincidently we found out that we believe in alot of the same theology they do - particularly many of their views on the atonement. Before this last summer I had never really known much about them. They have a Greek Festival every year I think we'll attend to try some of their food and some of the dances and shows they put on.
I found the greek ceremonies beautiful. The easter mass is awesome. But, one thing I remember was that the GREEK part was as important as the christian part. To many, it was more important.

[TShaitanaku]

1 Corinthians makes it pretty clear. (...)This is from the RSV, but other translations often use homosexuals instead of sexual perverts. The NLT is the most explicit stating that both male prostitutes and homosexuals are unrighteous.

Then I would need to see, and would most likely question, the basis of their translations.

I don't consider two people truly in love with each other, engaging in consensual sexual congress to be perverted, regardless of whether they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

There are many occassions when sex between a man and a woman can be perverted. Prostitution is a sin (regardless of whether it is hetero or homo) but not a mortal, or an especially grievous one in most cases.

If modern man, even in his most earnest and honorable intent to be true to the spirit of God, is capable of insinuating his personal and cultural biases into the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, I see no reason to think that the authors' of scripture were any less prone. Blasphemous heresies, in some quarters, but nothing I can't live with.

[Cello Man]

I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

That still leaves my first question: Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.
I've heard this several times myself. What I've never heard is exactly where in the NT it says "Hey, you know all that stuff about the shellfish and keeping slaves? Forget about all that. But keep the one about the gays, ok?"

Can anybody cite a verse?

See Sefarst's reply, quoted above here.

Edited to add:

While the New Testament doesn't mention all the bizarre laws about food that Leviticus does, Jesus makes no condemnation of slavery. It's just a-OK with God. Somewhere along the way humanity gradually realized it's not a right thing to do. It boggles my mind how people can break from some habits inherited from centuries of supposedly divinely inspired ideas, but others just won't go away.

[Hokulele]

Then I would need to see, and would most likely question, the basis of their translations.

I don't consider two people truly in love with each other, engaging in consensual sexual congress to be perverted, regardless of whether they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

There are many occassions when sex between a man and a woman can be perverted. Prostitution is a sin (regardless of whether it is hetero or homo) but not a mortal, or an especially grievous one in most cases.

If modern man, even in his most earnest and honorable intent to be true to the spirit of God, is capable of insinuating his personal and cultural biases into the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, I see no reason to think that the authors' of scripture were any less prone. Blasphemous heresies, in some quarters, but nothing I can't live with.


I honestly wish more Christians reasoned as you do, but many of the most vocal see the scriptures as the literal word of god, and cannot be reinterpreted due to changes in societal norms. Most of 1 Corinthians tends to be, er, somewhat against the mainstream today. And if everyone followed I Cor. 7 literally, there probably wouldn't be many Christians today. ;)

[leonAzul]

Link?


It's available here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

In the video box, scroll down for the Rick Warrren interview.

Peace,

paul

[halofish2000]

What you won't get from most preachers is the reason for the laws in Leviticus. Sure, they will point you to the golden calf and leave it at that. The problems goes way back to when the Isrealites were in Egyptian captivity for over 400 years. God was content to leave them there to self destruct but to save face and honor his promise to Abraham he led them out. On Mt Sinai, Moses was given the 10 commandments with 70 laws. This was confirmed by the elders and when Moses was taken from their presence for 40 days they reneged. God then gives them 613 laws that were not good so they could not live, basically, a delayed death sentence. The kings carried out the sentence.

[skeptigirl]

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?Right...In 2 minutes Colbert is supposed to give a fair and balanced view of all the criticisms of the Bible. :rolleyes:

It was a great Colbert moment. I really love the guy. He asked a question of this author about this book and the author's inane claims the Bible is inerrant and in 30 seconds with one question exposed "The Purpose Driven Life" for the crap that it is.

[skeptigirl]

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.The author? As in the author making the inane claim the Bible is inerrant?

[skeptigirl]

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).LOL

Thanks, that made my day. :D

[halofish2000]

Cloudship, the author should at least have the stones to explain his stance. He was put in a difficult position to answer not by his beliefs but by his need to be seen as a nice guy in order to peddle more books. Just another mega-preacher fleecing the sheeple.

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

[SirPhilip]

My, we do have a high opinion of ourselves do we not!!! If only it were deserved! Points to slingblade and wolfgirl and others. Your serve. Because I was harsh, a very strong underlying motivation to make anything I wrote wrongheaded was obvious, despite strictly looking over what I wrote. This was intentional misdirection. Yes, I'm being very rude and insensitive. Because it's frequent, not only directed towards me, and depressing. You can relate. If thrown lemons, make lemonade.

[billiefan2000]

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?cat=7

has entire articles on Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven death books

[NobbyNobbs]

That still leaves my first question: Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.


See Sefarst's reply, quoted above here.

Edited to add:

While the New Testament doesn't mention all the bizarre laws about food that Leviticus does, Jesus makes no condemnation of slavery. It's just a-OK with God. Somewhere along the way humanity gradually realized it's not a right thing to do. It boggles my mind how people can break from some habits inherited from centuries of supposedly divinely inspired ideas, but others just won't go away.

Ok, so the rationale is that the homosexual law is repeated, but the dietary laws aren't. In a strange way, I can kinda see the "logic".

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated? Do do we get to ignore those as well?

[A Christian Sceptic]

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated?

yes.

[Tanstaafl]

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated?

yes.


Really? I don't remember seeing that. Can you point me in the right direction to find that?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Really? I don't remember seeing that. Can you point me in the right direction to find that?


Mark 10:17-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



The Rich Young Man
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[b] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."



Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

[NobbyNobbs]

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

What about the original ten?


And should we assume that any commandments not repeated by the NT are no longer valid?

[Ipecac]

When I became an atheist, my religious brother asked me to read "The Purpose Driven Life". I told him I would if I could mark it up with my comments and give it back to him to read afterwards. He agreed.

I highlighted every inconsistency, inaccuracy, fallacy and stupidity in that book and left comments in pretty much every margin. It was a lot of work because it's such a bad book. He looked at a few of my comments, but I don't imagine for an instance he read all of them. In fact, I found out later he hadn't even read the whole book himself.

[Hokulele]

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?


The one thing I always found interesting about that passage, is that Jesus omitted all of the "jealous god" commandments. There is pretty much nothing about religion there, unlike the originals.

[A Christian Sceptic]

What about the original ten?


which original ten? :)


And should we assume that any commandments not repeated by the NT are no longer valid?

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.

Personally I like how Jesus summed it all up -


Mark 12:28-34 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: [B]'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

NOTE:
[a]Mark 12:30 Deut. 6:4,5
Mark 12:31 Lev. 19:18



Matthew 22:34-40 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " [B]'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."



I'm still working on these two commandments. I'm sure if I can get these two down the rest will fall in place accordingly. ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

The one thing I always found interesting about that passage, is that Jesus omitted all of the "jealous god" commandments. There is pretty much nothing about religion there, unlike the originals.

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

[KingMerv00]

which original ten? :)



Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.

Personally I like how Jesus summed it all up -





I'm still working on these two commandments. I'm sure if I can get these two down the rest will fall in place accordingly. ;)

Not a big fan of that first commandment. The second one is pretty good though. Unless you hate yourself of course.

[KingMerv00]

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

God stopped being jealous?

[sthomson]

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

But why the Epistles? Why Paul's letters at all, over anyone else's teachings?

(Disclaimer: I've read the whole NT, from Matt. to Rev., and I found Paul to be, on the whole, fanatical and a little bit sex-obsessed. Now, I'm sure he was a product of his era, but what a product!)

And the way he's interpreted lately! Paul writes, colloquially, "Stop visiting prostitutes! Stop paying boys in the street to suck you off! You've got a family, at home or in your church, that you should be nourishing!" And modern-day Christians interpret that to mean, "Stop forming loving, committed relationships with someone who's got the same genitalia as you do!"

[Tanstaafl]

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?


Probably not. Besides, my laziness may not be my most endearing quality, but it's the one I have in the most abundance. ;)

I also recall him paraphrasing the first commandment, something about love being the greatest commandment.

I suppose he didn't mention the graven images so that we'd be free to put statues of him on the dashboard.

[A Christian Sceptic]

But why the Epistles? Why Paul's letters at all, over anyone else's teachings?


I didn't say over anyone elses teachings. But they were foundational documents for the early church. And these were written as situations came up in the early church so as a Christian you might want to see what they believed and how they dealt with things and what applications they may have for your life. For the same reason you may also want to read other early christian writings.

[Hokulele]

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?


Yep. Being a radical, and most likely a revolutionary, many of Jesus' teachings were about a break with the religious authorities and practices of his time. In a sense, he really was building his own following, and it only made sense to leave out any hint of "competing religions are bad" from his teachings. In several passages, he hints at accepting polytheism or atheism as being as valid as monotheism (John 10).

[fishkr]

[QUOTE=A Christian Sceptic;3382783]Good



Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?



IQUOTE]

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it. The entire GOP platform statement sounds like something coming out of Islamibad. Substitute infedels with gays and sodomites, it's really worth a big laugh if it weren't for the price all the rest of us are paying for this lurid, unrelenting trash.

[A Christian Sceptic]

[QUOTE=A Christian Sceptic;3382783]Good



Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?



IQUOTE]

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it.


Really? - because I read the relevant sections and found no specific reasons for their arguments - only their stated platform goals and a general 'this is what we believe'. I never saw one bible verse quoted. Did you read it? So yes - I'm interested to know what their arguments are and if they base it on the Old Testament, The New Testament, or something else. Do you have an answer for me?

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

[SirPhilip]

Don't take it personally. People here tend to be a bit rough on the unclear or irrational. I had a similar hard time when I first came to the threads. I never really considered my philosophy on life before and never really critically analyzed my faith. I was guilty of similar conceits, and when I first came here I made much the same mistakes as most people who haven't really thought through the arguments. I was rash and had called athiesm a faith, that athiests were arrogant. I thought such an observation was such a novel condemnation. I quickly learned better. I received hostility and derision. It inspired me to learn more about the debates. Humanism isn't compatible with naturalism any more than it is with metaphysical naturalism. Humanists hold their own compass up despite nature, and naturalists eventually their own cross. You were right, by the way.

Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. (Brother Philip closes the window displaying atrociously tasteless pornography his co-worker left on his portable hard drive he's staring at bemusedly, another adjoining browser window showing muslims blown to pieces he atrociously and tastelessly finds thrilling, and additional things anyone from monotheistic religious traditions would recoil or condemn him to eternity in hell for, takes a large toke from his shisha pipe, and shrugs..)

Meet God:

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/01/31/boll/story.jpg

We all relate to one person's situation, the other we find ridiculous or resent, not caring to comprehend how even more absurd ours really is.

But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible. I think it is astonishing it's even intelligible, considering history.

"Take that one to heart!" - Guns & Roses

[thaiboxerken]

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

Because the bible is written by many different authors and edited, poorly, in attempt to make a continuous story even though the many stories are a collection of different myths about different gods.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some Jews and Muslims still observe prohibitions on pork (I don't know about shellfish, crustaceans, catfish, and cephalopods), but Christians by and large have outgrown that particular observance.

I had a Kenyan Muslim co-worker and we were talking about Halal/Haram foods one night and he mentioned he enjoyed shrimp. He was crestfallen when I told him they were shellfish and thus Haram. I tried to convince him if he avoided lobster, etc., he could assuage his guilt, but was insistant that Haram meant Haram.

Poor guy...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it. The entire GOP platform statement sounds like something coming out of Islamibad. Substitute infedels with gays and sodomites, it's really worth a big laugh if it weren't for the price all the rest of us are paying for this lurid, unrelenting trash.

Ummm, two things.

First, the majority of it sounds like the usual Conservative talking points you hear on talk radio, Faux's talk shows and Republican base talking heads. I don't find a whole lon the the Torah or the Koran about getting rid of executive orders, slave reparations, opposing the Endangered Species Act, restaining "activist" judges, union dues, water districts, American English, etc. etc. I mean unless you can find me verses that mention these things.

There are a number of planks in the Texas GOP platform that I disagree with, but using rediculous hyperbole like "The entire ... sounds like something coming out of Islamabad" isn't true. And what does a number of people love to say around here when someone asserts something that isn't true?

Also Perry screwed the political pooch a number of times this term (Garasil, Trans-Texas Corridor, Cig taxes) that I don't think much of the Republican partys agenda is going to get passed any time soon.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Mark 10:17-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

[ponderingturtle]

Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

Well as some take vows of poverty it would seem to be. I guess that means that anyone who does not do that is Dammed to hell as well.

[Tanstaafl]

Well, I'll be damned!

[tsg]

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.

[Tanstaafl]

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.


Judging from TBN, that's pretty common.

[TShaitanaku]

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.

I don't think any religion could keep you from taking such a vow, but most would probably consider it a "sin."

a few possible Exceptions:

Cult of Bacchus

Satanism

[NobbyNobbs]

which original ten? :)

The ones that Moses threw down and broke and ended up putting in the ark.



Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.


Way to dodge the question. I ask a simple yes or no question, and the answer is to study the bible for an undefined period of time?

It's pretty simple. The claim is that certain commandments from the OT are no longer considered necessary. It was implied that some are still important, and you can tell because they were repeated in the NT. So the question is, does that go for all the laws in the OT that are/aren't repeated in the NT?

If not, how do you pick and choose which are the important ones?

And personally, if I were religious and told to "Love God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor" and the rest would work itself out, well, I'd be inclined to think that homosexuality was alright, because what kind of God would make it a sin for people to follow a natural compulsion that He put into them in the first place?

[A Christian Sceptic]

And personally, if I were religious ...

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?

[joobz]

Humanism isn't compatible with naturalism any more than it is with metaphysical naturalism. Humanists hold their own compass up despite nature, and naturalists eventually their own cross. You were right, by the way.
Right about?

And humanist and naturalist philosphies converge in neurobiology.

[halofish2000]

The original 10 were never stated the same way again. After they rejected, after vowing to keep them, they were given the Law as a delayed death sentence. You will notice taht Paul leap frogs the monarchy and goes back to Abraham.

Being wealthy was not forbidden in the Bible. Abraham was wealthy and so was Job. Promiscuity...well, that's a different matter.

[halofish2000]

Which denomination CS? Aren't there laterally thousands? And they all seem to have a differing view of, well just about everything.

[arthwollipot]

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?It matters because lots of religious people think that it's important. And as halofish2000 has pointed out, they all disagree - sometimes violently. So if there is some purpose to life, and it's given to us in the Bible, then:

1) why isn't everyone doing it?
2) why do they all disagree?

[NobbyNobbs]

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?

You have still dodged the question. I don't understand. You've been very forthright and open with most of your posts, right up to the point where I ask "Do all laws not repeated in the NT no longer count?" Once I asked that, you became shifty.

Why won't you answer that question as simply and forthrightly as you've answered all the others?

[luchog]

So essentially, Jesus did away all that barbarism demanded by God in the Old Testament AND gave them his complete stamp of approval!

Nope, not the same. You're isolating quotes and taking them out of context to prove something that scripture doesn't say. Just like the fundies you castigate.

What you're not realize is the context of the Christ's quote; that is, He is the fulfillment of the law. His death, resurrection, and return is the fulfillment of the law. The other bit you're missing is that those comments are typically in response to Rabbis who were seeking to "trap" the speaker into claiming that the Law, or at least part of it, was invalidated. At that time there was a long-running feud between two major factions, the Pharisees and Saducees, and a number of minor factions, over what constituted the Law, how it should be applied, and so on ad nauseum. They were more concerned with minutia than with meaning.

And, like the fundies and other hardcore anti-Christians, you're also missing another important part of the context -- when the Moshiach was asked which was the "greatest", or most important, part of the law (translated "commandment") was.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?". Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40 NIV).

The point of all those was to show that the Law still applied, insofar as it was still important to live one's own life according to the spiritual principles contained therein; but that the import of the law was not a series of rigid rules; but an application of the principle of Agape love. It was also to demonstrate that under the Law, there is no one who is not guilty of even the smallest sin, "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the Kingdom of God"; but that through the Moshaich's sacrifice, that no longer mattered, since through acceptance of His mercy and grace, one was no longer guilty of it.

This deftly answered their questions, but in such a way as to show that all the factions involved were wrong, and that they were putting their own personal views of what the Law should mean, based on their personal interpretation of the letter, the sort of argument today we call "sematic nonsense", ahead of it's true purpose, the "spirit" of the law. "For the Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")
Nope, it's the same sort of "pick and choose", taking things out of context, and misinterpretation that I noted above. They wish to apply the letter of the law, ignoring it's context and spirit, in accordance with their own prejudices. They've become modern-day Pharisees and turned their back on what the Christ was trying to tell them.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Nope, not the same. You're isolating quotes and taking them out of context to prove something that scripture doesn't say. Just like the fundies you castigate.

What you're not realize is the context of the Christ's quote; that is, He is the fulfillment of the law. His death, resurrection, and return is the fulfillment of the law. The other bit you're missing is that those comments are typically in response to Rabbis who were seeking to "trap" the speaker into claiming that the Law, or at least part of it, was invalidated. At that time there was a long-running feud between two major factions, the Pharisees and Saducees, and a number of minor factions, over what constituted the Law, how it should be applied, and so on ad nauseum. They were more concerned with minutia than with meaning.

And, like the fundies and other hardcore anti-Christians, you're also missing another important part of the context -- when the Moshiach was asked which was the "greatest", or most important, part of the law (translated "commandment") was.

The point of all those was to show that the Law still applied, insofar as it was still important to live one's own life according to the spiritual principles contained therein; but that the import of the law was not a series of rigid rules; but an application of the principle of Agape love. It was also to demonstrate that under the Law, there is no one who is not guilty of even the smallest sin, "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the Kingdom of God"; but that through the Moshaich's sacrifice, that no longer mattered, since through acceptance of His mercy and grace, one was no longer guilty of it.

This deftly answered their questions, but in such a way as to show that all the factions involved were wrong, and that they were putting their own personal views of what the Law should mean, based on their personal interpretation of the letter, the sort of argument today we call "sematic nonsense", ahead of it's true purpose, the "spirit" of the law. "For the Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

Nope, it's the same sort of "pick and choose", taking things out of context, and misinterpretation that I noted above. They wish to apply the letter of the law, ignoring it's context and spirit, in accordance with their own prejudices. They've become modern-day Pharisees and turned their back on what the Christ was trying to tell them.


Hey Luchog - that's not a simple Yes or No answer. ;)

[luchog]

if you told them the Bible forbade the eating of shrimp, they'd give you a blank stare, followed by the "Jesus said that stuff didn't apply to us" speech, followed by another blank stare when you pointed out that he most certainly did not.
Yes, actually, He did.

"Do not call unclean that which the Lord has made clean." and "For it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him impure, but that which comes out of his mouth."

The former was in the context of Peter receiving a vision which was both a literal experience, and a symbolic precursor of a future requirement. By explicitly abolishing the prohibition of ceremonially impure foods, he was also symbolically abolishing the impurity associated with "unclean" peoples such as the Samaritans and the various Gentile groups; since many Jewish sects considered a "defiling" action to associate with non-Jews, and would require the performance of various rituals in order to purify themselves sufficiently to attend the temple worship and other religious ceremonies.

It was a concrete act that had a much greater spiritual implication; and was part of the extension of the Christ's salvation by grace to Gentile peoples, and the breaking of Jewish insularity and exclusionism. This ties into the analogy the "branch" of the Gentiles being "grafted" onto the same tree as the Jews, since the Jews had "ceased to bear fruit"; that is, had become spiritually dead and unproductive.

Such illustrative acts with larger implications were a commonly used device; and were recognized as such by the Jews. Indeed, most of their religion was based on it.

The latter was a similar situation, this time referring to the hypocrisy of the Pharasitical aherence to ritual while ignoring it's meaning. Preferring the "laws of man to the Law of God". He then went on to stress the fact that it wasn't actions -- eating or not eating, washing or not washing, and so on -- that were important, but adherence to the principles. What was important was the heart, the belief, not the act whose sole purpose was to be an expression of that belief.

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' """

[luchog]

Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

It's really annoying how often anti-Christians (not all atheists are anti-Christian, necessarily, just those that have that particular axe to grind) will take a quote out of a blatantly obvious context, just so they can manufacture some sort of artifical controversy or non-existant contradiction.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the passage, the meaning would have been completely clear.

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

It wasn't a commandment, because there are, in simplest form, only two commandments (as noted in an earlier post).

The relevant point was clearly made in verse 22; the command was given to him, because he cared more about his money than he did about righteousness. He tried to create an image of himself as a good man under Halachic law, to outwardly act like he deserved the promised rewards; but he had no real love for God, and no real love for the children of God. It was all a show. His real and deepest love was for his money and the power it gave him over others. He wanted eternal life, but on his terms, not God's.

That is why God's responses to different people are different. Each person has something in their life that keeps them from Him, whether it's intellectual pride, sexual lust, temporal power, fear, familial relationships, or anything else. Some one thing that is the most important thing in their lives, that they are most unwilling to give up. Because of that, God will invariably put that person in such as place that they have to recognize what it is that they hold in opposition to Him, and require them to make the decision as to which they will ultimately choose.

[bokonon]

"Do not call unclean that which the Lord has made clean." and "For it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him impure, but that which comes out of his mouth."

The former was in the context of Peter receiving a vision which was both a literal experience, and a symbolic precursor of a future requirement.
Yes, we're speaking of Acts chapter 10 here. It is not a pronouncement of Jesus per se, but a dream which Peter has. He interprets it to mean that he is able to visit "unclean" people (Gentiles), even though that violates Jewish law. Nowhere is there an indication that he interprets it as you have, that it's okay to eat shrimp. The passage doesn't even mention shrimp, and Peter doesn't interpret it to mean food in any case.

Matthew 5, in contrast, DOES record a pronouncement straight from Jesus himself:


17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The latter was a similar situation, this time referring to the hypocrisy of the Pharasitical aherence to ritual while ignoring it's meaning. Preferring the "laws of man to the Law of God". He then went on to stress the fact that it wasn't actions -- eating or not eating, washing or not washing, and so on -- that were important, but adherence to the principles. What was important was the heart, the belief, not the act whose sole purpose was to be an expression of that belief.

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
So Jesus is doing what he's just told everyone not to do -- breaking the least of the laws, and teaching others to do the same. I guess that means he'll be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I guess you got me. Thanks for the lesson.

I assume that "nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean," line must also apply to homosexual sex, as long as there's no penetration of the heart.

[joobz]

That is why God's responses to different people are different. Each person has something in their life that keeps them from Him, whether it's intellectual pride, sexual lust, temporal power, fear, familial relationships, or anything else. Some one thing that is the most important thing in their lives, that they are most unwilling to give up. Because of that, God will invariably put that person in such as place that they have to recognize what it is that they hold in opposition to Him, and require them to make the decision as to which they will ultimately choose.
Much like how god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love. What you enjoy, love, or hold dear, you must be willing to sacrifice to prove that you love god over all else?

Doesn't this seem a lot like giving a child a puppy and demanding that that child kill the puppy to prove it's loyalty/love?
Or how about demanding that your wife abandon all contact with her friends as proof of devotion to her husband?
Or how about saying that a person must give away all thier positions to prove loyalty/devotion to scientology?

luchog, I thank you for your explanations. I do not wish to missunderstand or make a strawman out of arguments. and yours actually do make sense and have a logical consistency to themselves.

I unfortunately just am not convinced of their goodness.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Much like how god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love. What you enjoy, love, or hold dear, you must be willing to sacrifice to prove that you love god over all else?


This might seem trivial but I think it wasn't so Abraham could prove his love, but show he has faith in God. In that case - faith that he )God) had a reason for this request of Abraham and that whatever the outcome faith it had a purpose and a reason and would turn out well (and indeed it did). Of course, Abraham also loved God but that was because he had faith in him.

[Iamme]

Is there any rational reason to discriminate against gays that isn't religiously motivated? I defy anyone to come up with a single example.


I don't know enough about how every world culture handles it.

I'd like to know how some of the indigenous tribespeople that get aired on The Travel Channel view homosexuality. It is doubtful that how they handle it is based on the Bible. Do they allow it if it is between 2 consenting adults? Or?...do they take them out in the woods and do them in?, as say being some freak of nature. [Please, don't argue that animals do it because I know that already. But do THEY? Or, do they CARE? That is what counts. It is how some of these (ot