Dobson: Obama distorted the Bible.

[Upchurch]

Just turn your irony meter off. No sense blowing up a perfectly good piece of fictional equipment on this story.

James Dobson Accuses Obama Of 'Distorting' Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/james-dobson-accuses-obam_n_108851.html)
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
(See? Told ya.)

[Pookster]

An interesting article about Americans' tolerance for other religions/views ...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25334489/


... Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.

In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion. ...


Other than trying to stir up the the far right evangelicals, I don't see Dobson getting any traction with this. He still isn't endorsing McCain yet either.

[Suddenly]

Feh...

James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

Just as bad, if not worse.

Lets see... Obama taught Constitutional Law, and at one of the most conservative Law Schools in the country at that. The faculty and students spoke highly of his work there.

Dobson? Right wing ninny with no background in constitutional law besides making uneducated statements about same.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I actually own one of Dobson's books. Bought it while I thought he was a libertarian.. got 2 chapters in, rapidly revised my opinion, and I haven't opened it since.

It doesn't really surprise me to see that he's pushing against Obama, given his rather... weird stances.

[corplinx]

Wasn't Dobson the guy who said your son won't be gay if you as a father shower with him?

[Upchurch]

Wasn't Dobson the guy who said your son won't be gay if you as a father shower with him?
Sorta (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson#Masculinity)
[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

[joobz]

He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard
Because pounding a round peg into a puckered starfish shaped hole is just too gay.

[Oliver]

Just turn your irony meter off. No sense blowing up a perfectly good piece of fictional equipment on this story.

James Dobson Accuses Obama Of 'Distorting' Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/james-dobson-accuses-obam_n_108851.html)

(See? Told ya.)


I also just saw it at CNN. So once again the MSM is going to take a look into the fantastically-sensationalistic Hogwash here - rather than going to address Obama's and Mc-Cain's stances about Americas Future... :rolleyes:

So is the Bible-Belt already upset about those "breakin' Noise"? :confused::rolleyes:

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I also just saw it at CNN. So once again the MSM is going to take a look into the fantastically-sensationalistic Hogwash here - rather than going to address Obama's and Mc-Cain's stances about Americas Future... :rolleyes:

So is the Bible-Belt already upset about those "breakin' Noise"? :confused::rolleyes:

Oh yes; I'm told my former KJV-onlyist Baptist church intends to do a full sermon about it in service tommorow. They fear that Obama's pull with the youth may corrupt their biblical literalist children.

ETA: From Dobson's Wiki: "James Clayton "Jim" Dobson (born April 21, 1936 in Shreveport, Louisiana) is an American evangelical Christian, nutjob and chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization he founded in 1977, from which he has never drawn a salary, but which has promoted his related books and publications, yielding him substantial royalties."

You've gotta love internet immaturity. :D

[Brainster]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.

[joobz]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.I didn't see what Obama said, but the bible does permit slavery.

[moon1969]

So what did Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay do? And to think that good christian George W. Bush claimed he didn"t know Jack Abramoff.

[hgc]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.


Agreed. Why even go there? I don't mind making the argument myself, as it's very instructive of how religious adherence to sacred texts is always expediently selective. But I prefer my politicians to stear clear of arguments related to theology. It comes across as snark, and it only stirs up the natives.

Who on Earth wants to get into a factual dispute with biblical literalists? Especially the facts that Obama picked to expound on. The whole Jesus told us to ignore some [unspecified] of that stuff ploy is always waiting.

[Undesired Walrus]

Deleted.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.

Why?

[SezMe]

This has nothing to do with Obama. Dobson's pissed because his old guard, conservative evangelism is on the wan. On the serious wan.

At one time not too many years ago he was king-maker. Bush, McCain, DeLay, et. al. paid him homage and, in return, he delivered the votes. All was good in WingNutland.

But of late many evangelicals have broadened their concerns beyond gays and guns. They worry about global warming, taking care of the poor, and the like. Dobson doesn't give a crap about these types of issues so he uses Obama as a stalking horse.

It's a classic scenario. A powerful person with access to high places finds himself increasingly irrelevant, or even worse, an embarrassement. This will be fascinating to follow no matter where you stand on the political spectrum.

[Pookster]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.


How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

"Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK ... ?"

Leviticus 25:44-46 does describe rules for how slaves are to be treated:

44 "'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property. 46 You may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them may you take your slaves forever: but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(World_English)/Leviticus#Chapter_25


So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

[joobz]

That's my understanding.

The only thing I could think is that it might be foolish to wade into theological discussions as a politician. However, that's the aspect I admire about Obama. It's one of the examples of "a break from politics as usual". I wished we saw more of that recently.

Right now, Obama is playing to win. Which is the smart thing to do, but disappointing.

[Suddenly]

He's just making a quick and easy jab rather than get caught up in some abstract discussion that gives the issue far too much credit.

Which satisfies suddenly's first and third laws of politics:

1) Never defend, always attack.

2) Never look like a dork.

3) The side that can express its position in the quickest and simplest terms wins.

[Darth Rotor]

How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

"Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK ... ?"
So he's calling the Jews slavers here?

Won't AIPAC be pleased!

Obama is not a theologian, nor a preacher. His uses of the Bible and references to it, will tend to be political. (At least in public utterances.)

Duhobson might want to figure that into his thinking.

DR

[Pookster]

So he's calling the Jews slavers here?

Won't AIPAC be pleased!

Obama is not a theologian, nor a preacher. His uses of the Bible and references to it, will tend to be political. (At least in public utterances.)

Duhobson might want to figure that into his thinking.

DR


I didn't see him call Jews slavers. Maybe you've read something I haven't though. *shrugs*

Of course his reference was political. But he does have a good point. If you're going to govern according to what the bible says, then whoever is governing can pick from any number of conflicting things based on their own religion. It's not practical or wise to govern solely on the word of the bible.

[joobz]

3) The side that can express its position in the quickest and simplest terms wins.
I assume the depth of what that expression relates is unimportant.

So, It seems McCaime will have to come up with something simpler than: "Change".


Suggestions include:
"Win"
"Cha"
"AHH" -shortened from "Ahhh, we're all gonna die."
"Boo" - shortened from "Terrorists! Oogie Boogie Oogie Boogie"

[BenBurch]

So he's calling the Jews slavers here?

Won't AIPAC be pleased!

Obama is not a theologian, nor a preacher. His uses of the Bible and references to it, will tend to be political. (At least in public utterances.)

Duhobson might want to figure that into his thinking.

DR

Most recently, it is the Christians and the Muslims who are slavers. We only stopped it here in the 1860s, and Saudi Arabia did it until 1962...

And in both cases, Leviticus was cited as justification.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric. Leviticus does in fact suggest that slavery is OK to at least some people.

For example:

People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery. - Senator Charles Davidson, 1996 (http://personalwebs.myriad.net/steveb/slavery.html)

[Dr Adequate]

Obama is not a theologian ... Martin Luther was, perhaps Dobson should remember that.

What, there is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this? This means that Christian liberty is turned into liberty of the flesh. Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the Gospel. - Martin Luther (http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00002.htm)

* waves at Brainster *

[Dr Adequate]

And in both cases, Leviticus was cited as justification. We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. - CFW (http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00002.htm) Walther[/url]

Yay atheism!

I hardly know which is more unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who profess to be Christians, and yet dare affirm that the Book of God gives no sanction to slaveholding. - Dr Shannon, Bacon College, Kentucky (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;rgn=full%20text;idno=AEV3891.0001 .001;didno=AEV3891.0001.001;view=image;seq=0001)

Yay sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity! I gotta get me more of that stuff.

[gdnp]

How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

"Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK ... ?"

Leviticus 25:44-46 does describe rules for how slaves are to be treated:

44 "'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property. 46 You may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them may you take your slaves forever: but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(World_English)/Leviticus#Chapter_25


So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

Because he should have cited the new testament. Christians would have never supported slavery:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Oops. I guess the NT supports slavery too.

My bad.

Hard to be a fundamentalist and not a contortionist.

[Brainster]

How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

"Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK ... ?"

Leviticus 25:44-46 does describe rules for how slaves are to be treated:

44 "'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property. 46 You may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them may you take your slaves forever: but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(World_English)/Leviticus#Chapter_25


So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

Because no Christians alive today point to Leviticus and say "Let's bring back slavery." Christians somehow allow themselves to eat pork and bacon despite clear prohibitions in the Old Testament. And somehow they've never noticed that it's banned?

That's why it's sophomoric, because it acts as if these debates have never occurred, and have never been settled to general agreement.

[joobz]

Because no Christians alive today point to Leviticus and say "Let's bring back slavery." Christians somehow allow themselves to eat pork and bacon despite clear prohibitions in the Old Testament. And somehow they've never noticed that it's banned?

That's why it's sophomoric, because it acts as if these debates have never occurred, and have never been settled to general agreement.
But that is exactly the point. It is an assumed that no one today justifies slavery using leviticus, but we do have people justifying anti-gay views using leviticus (Dobson being one of them). It's an excellent comparison, since there are historical examples of slavery arguments being made on the exact same grounds.

[gdnp]

I still don't understand what Obama has done which is sophomoric.

Dobson, generally thought of as a fundamentalist who believes the bible is literally true, has accused Obama of distorting the bible. This is because Obama quoted some old testament texts that for some reason Dobson claims no longer apply. Even though Jesus, in the new testament, said they did:

(Verse 17) 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
(Verse 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
(Verse 19) Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-19 - NKJV).


Both Jesus and the apostle Paul make statements in the New Testament that slaves should obey their masters.

I guess Dobson doesn't like people pointing out the contradictions in his own belief system.

Nothing sophomoric as far as I can see.

[Dr Adequate]

Because no Christians alive today point to Leviticus and say "Let's bring back slavery." Though, as you have seen, a Senator was using it to justify slavery as recently as 1996.

Christians somehow allow themselves to eat pork and bacon despite clear prohibitions in the Old Testament. And somehow they've never noticed that it's banned? "Sophomoric", eh? That debate was settled nearly two thousand years ago. It is clear theologically that Christians are released from the ceremonial law of the OT; it is not at all clear that anything forbidding slavery has been added to the civil law of the OT. If you think there has, perhaps you could cite it.

That's why it's sophomoric, because it acts as if these debates have never occurred, and have never been settled to general agreement. No, that's why it's a good example. Because there is general (though not universal) agreement, it is a rhetorical question that demands the answer no.

[Pookster]

Because no Christians alive today point to Leviticus and say "Let's bring back slavery." Christians somehow allow themselves to eat pork and bacon despite clear prohibitions in the Old Testament. And somehow they've never noticed that it's banned?

That's why it's sophomoric, because it acts as if these debates have never occurred, and have never been settled to general agreement.


Settled to general agreement, huh? Okay then. In the article I linked to earlier, 57% of evangelicals believe other religions can lead to eternal life ... in contradiction with traditional evangelical teaching. Eternal life. Imagine that. From the article, 70% of Americans with a religious affiliation (I realize this includes more than just Christians) shared that view, and 68% believe there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion. Pardon me if I don't take what you say about Christians being in general agreement on anything ... on faith (pun intended). Also, being in general agreement on things that are still banned by the OT doesn't seem to hinder many Christians from violating any number of them. Adultery is the first thing that comes to mind. Your claim of Obama being sophomoric seems a little sophomoric itself.

[Brainster]

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/) and the Huffington Post and Dobson do not summarize it very well. The quoted passage is in there, but it's a very minor point in a speech that is much more subtle and sophisticated.

I withdraw the comment. If it had been as described in the HuffPo and by Dobson it would have been sophomoric.

[Tony]

More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818313,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

It looks as if Dobson may be fossilizing before our eyes.

[Pookster]

More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818313,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

It looks as if Dobson may be fossilizing before our eyes.


Fool me once ...

It's hard to sell his kind of hate anymore. People aren't nearly as afraid to stand up to his brand of "morality" anymore.

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/) and the Huffington Post and Dobson do not summarize it very well. The quoted passage is in there, but it's a very minor point in a speech that is much more subtle and sophisticated.

I withdraw the comment. If it had been as described in the HuffPo and by Dobson it would have been sophomoric. I bet you won't be trusting James Dobson or the Huffington Post any more.