Dobson: Obama distorted the Bible.

[Pookster]

So he's calling the Jews slavers here?

Won't AIPAC be pleased!

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

Duhobson might want to figure that into his thinking.

DR

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

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

 

[joobz]

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

I assume the depth of what that expression relates is unimportant.

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


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

 

[BenBurch]

So he's calling the Jews slavers here?

Won't AIPAC be pleased!

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

Duhobson might want to figure that into his thinking.

DR

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

And in both cases, Leviticus was cited as justification.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

Leviticus does in fact suggest that slavery is OK to at least some people.

For example:

People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery. - Senator Charles Davidson, 1996​

 

[Dr Adequate]

Obama is not a theologian ...

Martin Luther was, perhaps Dobson should remember that.

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

* waves at Brainster *

 

[Dr Adequate]

And in both cases, Leviticus was cited as justification.

We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. - CFW 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]

How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

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

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

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

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


So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

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

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

Oops. I guess the NT supports slavery too.

My bad.

Hard to be a fundamentalist and not a contortionist.

 

[Brainster]

How is it sophomoric? Here is what Obama stated:

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

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

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

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


So again, how is Obama's point sophomoric?

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

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

 

[joobz]

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

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

But that is exactly the point. It is an assumed that no one today justifies slavery using leviticus, but we do have people justifying anti-gay views using leviticus (Dobson being one of them). It's an excellent comparison, since there are historical examples of slavery arguments being made on the exact same grounds.

 

[gdnp]

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing sophomoric as far as I can see.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Because no Christians alive today point to Leviticus and say "Let's bring back slavery."

Though, as you have seen, a Senator was using it to justify slavery as recently as 1996.

Christians somehow allow themselves to eat pork and bacon despite clear prohibitions in the Old Testament. And somehow they've never noticed that it's banned?

"Sophomoric", eh? That debate was settled nearly two thousand years ago. It is clear theologically that Christians are released from the ceremonial law of the OT; it is not at all clear that anything forbidding slavery has been added to the civil law of the OT. If you think there has, perhaps you could cite it.

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

No, that's why it's a good example. Because there is general (though not universal) agreement, it is a rhetorical question that demands the answer no.

 

[Pookster]

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

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

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

 

[Brainster]

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave and the Huffington Post and Dobson do not summarize it very well. The quoted passage is in there, but it's a very minor point in a speech that is much more subtle and sophisticated.

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

 

[Tony]

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

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

 

[Pookster]

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

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

Fool me once ...

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

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, I read the actual speech that Obama gave 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.