Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

[joobz]

Wait... seriously?

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

from this website http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/

And while deciding whether or not a joke is appropriate, he said that he asks himself, "'Does it disrespect the concept of their belief?' and if it does, then I really don't think I can do it... Because who am I to say that what they believe is wrong? But if they're doing things, using religion as a tool in some other behavior... y'know, hypocritical or destructive... then it's fair game."

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

 

[cloudshipsrule]

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

 

[This Guy]

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

 

[Cello Man]

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nogbad]

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

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

 

[tsg]

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

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


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

 

[Hokulele]

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

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

 

[skeptical]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cello Man]

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

 

[SirPhilip]

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

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

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

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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

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

 

[Tanstaafl]

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

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

Mandatory school prayer, for example.

 

[AK-Dave]

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

-david

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

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

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.
[/FONT]
Republican Party of Texas Platform - [FONT=Arial, Arial, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]

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

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

LLH

 

[shadron]

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

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

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

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

 

[sthomson]

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

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

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

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

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

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

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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

LLH

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

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

 

[Tricky]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.[/FONT]

Now let's be fair. That might not be about homosexuals at all. It could mean that men lie with male buddies about things like fishing and how many women they've had, but they lie with with females about where they were last night and how much they've had to drink.

 

[SirPhilip]

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

Well then, you don't get a cookie.