Dobson: Obama distorted the Bible.

Upchurch · 24th June 2008, 07:42 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 24th June 2008, 09:01 AM

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

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

Quote:

... 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 · 24th June 2008, 10:13 AM

Feh...

Quote:

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 · 24th June 2008, 11:45 AM

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 · 24th June 2008, 01:02 PM

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

Upchurch · 24th June 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

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

Sorta

Quote:

[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 · 24th June 2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

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 · 24th June 2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by 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

(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...

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

Kthulhut Fhtagn · 24th June 2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

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...

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

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.

Brainster · 24th June 2008, 03:01 PM

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

joobz · 24th June 2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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 · 24th June 2008, 03:58 PM

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 · 24th June 2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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 · 25th June 2008, 02:55 AM

Deleted.

Undesired Walrus · 25th June 2008, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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

Why?

SezMe · 25th June 2008, 03:15 AM

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 · 25th June 2008, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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_...cus#Chapter_25

So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

joobz · 25th June 2008, 06:57 AM

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 · 25th June 2008, 09:03 AM

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 · 25th June 2008, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pookster

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 · 25th June 2008, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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 · 25th June 2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

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 · 25th June 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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 · 25th June 2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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

Dr Adequate · 25th June 2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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

* waves at Brainster *

Dr Adequate · 25th June 2008, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

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 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

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

gdnp · 25th June 2008, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Pookster

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_...cus#Chapter_25

So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

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

Quote:

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 · 25th June 2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pookster

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_...cus#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 · 25th June 2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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 · 25th June 2008, 10:29 PM

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:

Quote:

(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 · 26th June 2008, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 26th June 2008, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

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 · 26th June 2008, 10:42 AM

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave 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 · 28th June 2008, 01:09 PM

More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...rss-topstories

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

Pookster · 28th June 2008, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Tony

More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...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 · 28th June 2008, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave 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.

24th June 2008, 07:42 AM	#1
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Dobson: Obama distorted the Bible. 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 Quote: 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.)

24th June 2008, 10:13 AM	#3
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montani Semper Liberi Posts: 2,645	Feh... Quote: 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.
	__________________ Visit ElbowJobertski.com for all your fine comic literature needs, that is assuming all you want is on that site. It probably isn't, but so it goes.

24th June 2008, 11:45 AM	#4
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,868	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.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

24th June 2008, 01:02 PM	#5
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Wasn't Dobson the guy who said your son won't be gay if you as a father shower with him?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

24th June 2008, 01:22 PM	#7
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Quote: 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.
	__________________ 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

24th June 2008, 09:01 AM	#2
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	An interesting article about Americans' tolerance for other religions/views ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25334489/ Quote: ... 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.

24th June 2008, 01:16 PM	#6
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by corplinx Wasn't Dobson the guy who said your son won't be gay if you as a father shower with him? Sorta Quote: [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.

24th June 2008, 01:22 PM	#8
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by 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 (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... So is the Bible-Belt already upset about those "breakin' Noise"?
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 24th June 2008 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Typo

24th June 2008, 02:07 PM	#9
Kthulhut Fhtagn Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Somewhere in time and space... Posts: 1,939	Originally Posted by Oliver 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... So is the Bible-Belt already upset about those "breakin' Noise"? 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.
	Last edited by Kthulhut Fhtagn; 24th June 2008 at 03:06 PM.

24th June 2008, 03:01 PM	#10
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,450	I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

24th June 2008, 03:18 PM	#11
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by Brainster 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.
	__________________ 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

24th June 2008, 03:58 PM	#12
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	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.

24th June 2008, 04:03 PM	#13
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Originally Posted by Brainster 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.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th June 2008, 02:55 AM	#14
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	Deleted.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 25th June 2008 at 02:59 AM.

25th June 2008, 02:59 AM	#15
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	Originally Posted by Brainster I'm not a religious person myself, but Obama's point about Leviticus and slavery is sophomoric. Why?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 25th June 2008 at 03:09 AM.

25th June 2008, 03:15 AM	#16
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	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.

25th June 2008, 06:40 AM	#17
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by Brainster 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_...cus#Chapter_25 So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

25th June 2008, 06:57 AM	#18
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	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.
	__________________ 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

25th June 2008, 09:03 AM	#19
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montani Semper Liberi Posts: 2,645	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.
	__________________ Visit ElbowJobertski.com for all your fine comic literature needs, that is assuming all you want is on that site. It probably isn't, but so it goes.

25th June 2008, 09:14 AM	#20
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Pookster 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

25th June 2008, 09:21 AM	#21
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 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.

25th June 2008, 11:09 AM	#22
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by Suddenly 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"
	__________________ 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

25th June 2008, 11:27 AM	#23
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,220	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 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.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

25th June 2008, 05:14 PM	#24
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Brainster 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

25th June 2008, 05:18 PM	#25
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 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 * waves at Brainster *

25th June 2008, 05:24 PM	#26
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by BenBurch 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 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 Yay sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity! I gotta get me more of that stuff.

25th June 2008, 08:03 PM	#27
gdnp useless idiot Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey-You gotta problem wit dat? Posts: 4,999	Originally Posted by Pookster 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_...cus#Chapter_25 So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric? Because he should have cited the new testament. Christians would have never supported slavery: Quote: 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.

25th June 2008, 10:09 PM	#28
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,450	Originally Posted by Pookster 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_...cus#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.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

25th June 2008, 10:25 PM	#29
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by Brainster 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.
	__________________ 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

25th June 2008, 10:29 PM	#30
gdnp useless idiot Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey-You gotta problem wit dat? Posts: 4,999	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: Quote: (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.

26th June 2008, 12:20 AM	#31
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Brainster 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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.

26th June 2008, 08:18 AM	#32
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by Brainster 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.

26th June 2008, 10:42 AM	#33
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,450	Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave 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.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

28th June 2008, 01:09 PM	#34
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,768	More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...rss-topstories It looks as if Dobson may be fossilizing before our eyes.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

28th June 2008, 03:29 PM	#35
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by Tony More good news on this front: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...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.