Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

Tsukasa Buddha · 28th January 2008, 09:06 PM

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.

joobz · 28th January 2008, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 28th January 2008, 09:29 PM

Link?

joobz · 28th January 2008, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Link?

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

Hokulele · 28th January 2008, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

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 · 28th January 2008, 09:40 PM

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 · 28th January 2008, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by 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 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 · 28th January 2008, 10:08 PM

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

halofish2000 · 28th January 2008, 11:58 PM

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 · 29th January 2008, 12:33 AM

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 · 29th January 2008, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 29th January 2008, 05:47 AM

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

LordoftheLeftHand · 29th January 2008, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 29th January 2008, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

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 · 29th January 2008, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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

tsg · 29th January 2008, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

Tu Quoque.

Foster Zygote · 29th January 2008, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

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 · 29th January 2008, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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 · 29th January 2008, 08:29 AM

Wait... seriously?

A Christian Sceptic · 29th January 2008, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

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 · 29th January 2008, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

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/as...-sundayschool/

Quote:

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 · 29th January 2008, 08:55 AM

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 · 29th January 2008, 08:57 AM

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

Cello Man · 29th January 2008, 08:57 AM

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

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

Originally Posted by Leviticus

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

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 · 29th January 2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

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 · 29th January 2008, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

... 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 · 29th January 2008, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Nogbad

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 · 29th January 2008, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cello Man

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 · 29th January 2008, 09:57 AM

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

SirPhilip · 29th January 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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 · 29th January 2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Cello Man

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

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

Tanstaafl · 29th January 2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

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 · 29th January 2008, 10:48 AM

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

-david

LordoftheLeftHand · 29th January 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

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.

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

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 · 29th January 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic

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 · 29th January 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

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 · 29th January 2008, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by sthomson

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 · 29th January 2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

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 · 29th January 2008, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

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 · 29th January 2008, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by sthomson

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.

28th January 2008, 09:06 PM	#1
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 5,078	Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life 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.
	__________________ Monk to Zen Master: What happens after death, master? Zen master: I don’t know. Monk: But you are a master! Master: Yes, but I’m not a dead one yet.

28th January 2008, 09:25 PM	#2
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by 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? 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?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

28th January 2008, 09:29 PM	#3
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Heck with subtlety, off to Redmond to unleash the MS-DOS UI developers! Posts: 23,669	Link?
	__________________ I'm ranged and my mana's being replaced with...rage or fury or something. - slingblade

28th January 2008, 09:32 PM	#4
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by Hokulele Link? sorry I can't get my DVR to fit into the intertubes.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

28th January 2008, 09:33 PM	#5
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Heck with subtlety, off to Redmond to unleash the MS-DOS UI developers! Posts: 23,669	Originally Posted by joobz 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.
	__________________ I'm ranged and my mana's being replaced with...rage or fury or something. - slingblade

28th January 2008, 09:40 PM	#6
Dark Jaguar Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,666	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.
	Last edited by Dark Jaguar; 28th January 2008 at 09:45 PM.

28th January 2008, 09:44 PM	#7
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by 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 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.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

28th January 2008, 10:08 PM	#8
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 11,007	I saw it. Not bad. I wish Colbert had pressed him on the stoning gays thing.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

28th January 2008, 11:58 PM	#9
halofish2000 Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 164	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?
halofish2000 Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 164

29th January 2008, 12:33 AM	#10
Tumblehome Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Beside the point Posts: 1,249	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.
	Last edited by Tumblehome; 29th January 2008 at 12:37 AM.

29th January 2008, 05:40 AM	#11
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,479	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,479

29th January 2008, 05:47 AM	#12
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	A lot, including that author apparently, are not aware Colbert is a Sunday School teacher.
	__________________ "The head of the love organ is shaped exactly like a poisonous rattlesnake. And just like a rattlesnake, it's always looking for a hole." - Sun Myung Moon "There are social darwinism principles to uphold here." - Me Last edited by SirPhilip; 29th January 2008 at 05:49 AM.

29th January 2008, 05:52 AM	#13
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,161	Originally Posted by 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? 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
	__________________ What though the field be lost? All is not lost—the unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield - Milton, Paradise Lost

29th January 2008, 06:13 AM	#14
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 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.
	__________________ "The head of the love organ is shaped exactly like a poisonous rattlesnake. And just like a rattlesnake, it's always looking for a hole." - Sun Myung Moon "There are social darwinism principles to uphold here." - Me Last edited by SirPhilip; 29th January 2008 at 06:14 AM.

29th January 2008, 06:19 AM	#15
Nogbad Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,254	Originally Posted by 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? Varied hugely - for example the Egyptians had no particular issue with homosexuality whereas the Hittites made the Israelites look like pussycats.

29th January 2008, 06:30 AM	#16
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by 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? Tu Quoque.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

29th January 2008, 06:37 AM	#17
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Posts: 8,501	Originally Posted by SirPhilip 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?
	__________________ Minions... ATTACK!!!

29th January 2008, 07:07 AM	#18
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote 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.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

29th January 2008, 08:29 AM	#19
Dark Jaguar Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,666	Wait... seriously?

29th January 2008, 08:33 AM	#20
A Christian Sceptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: I'm a male! Posts: 1,986	Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand 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?
	__________________ How's it hanging?

29th January 2008, 08:51 AM	#21
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 13,374	Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar 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/as...-sundayschool/ Quote: 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."
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

29th January 2008, 08:55 AM	#22
cloudshipsrule Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,171	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.

29th January 2008, 08:57 AM	#23
This Guy Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 1,948	I can never find my irony meter when I really need it
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

29th January 2008, 08:57 AM	#24
Cello Man Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,035	The point of Colbert's jab is this: The verse which Christians use to condemn homosexuality comes from Leviticus, in the Old Testament: Originally Posted by Leviticus 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 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?
	__________________ This is my Timey-Wimey Detector. It goes "DING!" when there's stuff. - The Doctor

29th January 2008, 09:02 AM	#25
Nogbad Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,254	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic 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.

29th January 2008, 09:23 AM	#26
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by 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. ... 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.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

29th January 2008, 09:37 AM	#27
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Heck with subtlety, off to Redmond to unleash the MS-DOS UI developers! Posts: 23,669	Originally Posted by Nogbad 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.
	__________________ I'm ranged and my mana's being replaced with...rage or fury or something. - slingblade

29th January 2008, 09:42 AM	#28
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by Cello Man 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)
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	__________________ Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding.- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial 1925 When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

29th January 2008, 09:57 AM	#29
Cello Man Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,035	skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com.
	__________________ This is my Timey-Wimey Detector. It goes "DING!" when there's stuff. - The Doctor Last edited by Cello Man; 29th January 2008 at 09:58 AM. Reason: fix URL

29th January 2008, 10:11 AM	#30
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote 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?
	__________________ "The head of the love organ is shaped exactly like a poisonous rattlesnake. And just like a rattlesnake, it's always looking for a hole." - Sun Myung Moon "There are social darwinism principles to uphold here." - Me Last edited by SirPhilip; 29th January 2008 at 10:12 AM.

29th January 2008, 10:26 AM	#31
A Christian Sceptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: I'm a male! Posts: 1,986	Originally Posted by Cello Man skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com. Wow- I hope those shrimp haters don't try to impose their beliefs against shrimp on me.
	__________________ How's it hanging?

29th January 2008, 10:33 AM	#32
Tanstaafl Unindicted Co-conspirator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 5,309	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic 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.
	__________________ To forgive is human, to condemn for eternity is divine. -- AudioFreak Truth is where evidence comes from, not where belief leads to. --yy2bggggs Expelled exposed! Sylvia Browne

29th January 2008, 10:48 AM	#33
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 539	The video can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...rt/index.jhtml for those who have not seen it. -david
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one.

29th January 2008, 10:58 AM	#34
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,161	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic 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. Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic 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
	__________________ What though the field be lost? All is not lost—the unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield - Milton, Paradise Lost

29th January 2008, 10:58 AM	#35
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,475	Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic 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.