Evangelical leader James Dobson said, yesterday, that Obama was "distorting the Bible" when he made the following statements in a speech:Obama asked, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"
Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." He went on to say that Obama should not be referencing "antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament."
Isn't this typical? It's okay for Dobson and other Christians to distort the Bible to fit their world view; for example calling certain parts "antiquated" and "no longer relevant" while claiming other parts are still completely relevant. I wonder who decides which is which...
In my world view, the entire book is antiquated and irrelevant!
I especially like the phrase "traditional understanding of the Bible." I guess that means don't use your own mind (or reason) to figure out what it says or means. Just ask Uncle Jimmy. He'll set you straight on the "real" meaning. After all, we're all too stupid to figure out what the sky-daddy was talking about. Right?
Technorati Tags:
humor Atheist Bible Christian Comics religion Evangelical
12 comments:
Awesome! Keep up the great work. :)
I really liked what Obama had to say re: biblical passages. Not that I am a huge fan of religion, Christianity, or the Bible (especially since I was raised Jewish), I applaud anyone who stands up to someone saying they "deliberately distort[ing] the traditional understanding of the Bible". I have never met anyone who lives by the bible word for word. And thank Glorious Nature for that! :) He/she would be imprisoned for much of it anyway. There's a lot of immoral stuff in there.
This post, the last comment, and Obama's statement all show a slight misunderstanding of the Bible on a few different levels.
The first is that 1) the Bible is not a rule book. Bible believers don't (or shouldn't) follow it as if it's a listing of "don't"'s, because following rules is not going to get you into heaven. The purpose for the Bible is to guide people to the living God and to live a life that is more like Him. So to say that Christians pick and choose what part of the Bible to follow is generally inaccurate. Someone who wants to follow the Bible's teachings will try and strive to do it wholistically, though everyone, as humans, makes mistakes.
2) The Leviticus passage and the Deutoronomy passage were written for a specific group of people (the Jews) for a specific time in history (the pre-Christ era). This, of course, does not mean that all the ideas were thrown out (ie, homosexuality is still wrong - it's mentioned again in the New Testament as well), but that Christ came to fulfill the law. With his coming, it has changed drastically. There is no need to sacrifice sheep anymore, for example. The shellfish argument is one for those who are generally ignorant of the purpose of the Old Testament.
Also, when it comes to someone quoting the Bible, I'm going to believe someone who has a background in theology and experience in reading authorial intent over those who display blind skepticism through recycled, empty arguments.
As I think over Obama's statement a bit more, I realize I don't have all the context (ie, who he's talking to, what statement they're making, etc.), so I won't be so quick to say something against him just based on the out-of-place quote.
phinehas,
Who are you to decide the purpose of the bible and what believers should or shouldn't do? You speak with exactly the kind of arrogance this comic is addressing.
I was raised by and around christians and experienced many different denominations as my mother searched for the "truth." And I am here to tell you that most of them, hell all of them, cherry picked the bible. I spent many hours of my childhood in churches of various christian flavors and I never heard the verses I write about on this blog. That's exactly the reason I'm writing it, to bring it to peoples attention and let them in on the dirty little christian secret...
In fact, you're cherry picking right now. You're saying this part was for the Jews and this part is no longer relavent and so on.
Oh, and your statement about quoting the bible. You said you're going to believe someone who has a background in theology and experience in reading authorial intent... That's hilarious! You're saying exactly what Dobson said with his "traditional interpretation" comment; "Folks, we've already figured this stuff out. So don't bother yourselves with actually reading it and thinking about what it means. Just take our word for it."
Unbelieveable arrogance!!!
Brilliant cartoon.
You can call it "cherry picking" if you like, but there's a reason why no one sacrifices animals anymore. There's a reason we're allowed to eat Shellfish. There's a reason that homosexuality is still considered a sin.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that every Christian blindly accepts what's in the Bible without seriously considering its contents.
If you want to use a personal story, then I will, too - I grew up in a Christian family and have gone to church all my life. I HAVE seen verses like the ones you write in your blog preached on or covered - IN CONTEXT, mind you - not violently ripped from the text and read as an everlasting rule on their own. We have asked the hard questions - how does God allow mass killings, etc. in the Old Testament, how can Hell be the concept of a benevolent God, the problem of evil, etc. And every time I've found the answers to be in line with reality.
Re: the theology statement, would you believe an armchair scientist or a scientist who has had years of training and experience when discussing science?
It sure seems like someone who knows and understands ancient languages and has studied authorial intent his entire life would understand the ancient book a lot more than someone who takes a verse out of context and says "See? Ha!"
As another short follow-up, I just want to say that the Bible is accessible to everyone. I believe its contents can be read and understood by anyone who decided to pick it up and read it.
But there are also themes, prophecies, and a lot of heavy, poetic language used throughout the entire thing. There were also certain audiences it was written to (ie Old Testament was written for the Jews - doesn't mean it's irrelevant for us, but it DOES change the way we should approach it).
Reading the Bible, though accessible, is not something one can just pick up and master. Atheists, cults, and several denominations have been started that way, and it's rather unfortunate.
Also, "Folks, we've already figured this stuff out. So don't bother yourselves with actually reading it and thinking about what it means. Just take our word for it." I never said this, neither did anyone else. Please don't put words like that in my mouth. If anyone really wants to find out the hard truth, they need to dig, spend the time reading, and search for context. I would never recommend just blindly taking someone at their word without testing it to see if it holds any weight.
Hmm DocMike you better run for the hills, you have got yourself a True Christian who is truly humble and non-selfrighteous. He himself is able to speak in parables and paradoxes like the Bible he truly has mastered.
The Bible can be understood by everyone but it cannot be mastered by everyone.
Only those who have truly mastered it can tell you the context of how you should understand it.
Oh but now you should test their mastery - by reading more on a subject you can understand but cannot truly master.
hence you should find someone who has truly mastered it, but no dont take their word.....etc
Divinely inspired as usual
Phinehas,
"There is no need to sacrifice sheep anymore, for example."
The fact that there is no longer any need for people to sacrifice sheep makes as little sense as there being a need in the first place. Its abandonment as a ritual was not based on any sort of rational enlightment, a "hey, this actually serves no purpose at all, why the hell are we still doing this?". Instead, Jesus' "filling in the law", including a moratorium on slaughtering Dollies, was as arbitrary and capricious as instituting the practice in the first place.
That therefore puts paid to any arguments purporting that either the New Testament is law we can live by, or that the Old Testament contains merely the senile ravings of an old Yahweh.
It's all a load of fictitious drivel.
In short, people sinned. And because they sinned, they were separated from God and they deserved to die. However, God allowed for the sacrifice of animals (spotless lambs) which was a cover for people's sin (as long as their heart was truly repentant).
This continued for many years, until God decided to send his only son, Jesus Christ, as the ultimate sacrifice for all of mankind forever. Hence the "whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life."
Christ fulfilled the law, therefore sacrifice of animals is no longer unnecessary. I would say that's a fairly rational enlightenment myself.
This is all stuff that people learn within the early years of their Christianity. I'm not trying to talk down to anyone with this - but can't you see that with a little knowledge, the perspective of the text inherently changes (whether you believe it or not)?
I still say none of you would take the opinion of an unstudied, inexperienced scientist seriously, so why would you expect to be able to do the same thing with the Bible? It is an unfortunate double standard.
Which goes back to the absurd point that it was neccessary to sacrifice sheep in the first place.
Christians caught a lucky break - or else they still would need to sacrifice sheep. Because God demanded it in the OT.
So like what you said actually Jesus aint so special. Sheep did his job in the first place.
big Deal.
Actually, sheep were never enough to do the job in the first place. They were actually a symbol put in place for the Israelites as a sign of things to come... namely, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The entirety of the Old Testament is really a story of people looking forward to the Messiah - the New Testament then becomes the story of everyone witnessing and living life after the Messiah came for the first time. People in the Old Testament were saved by their faith the same way that people are saved by faith today.
re: the necessity of whether something needed to die, the idea goes that if you do something worthy of death, the punishment needs to be paid. Christ died once and for all our sins.
Post a Comment