 rmowery says: Obama is correct on this. Dobson and Minnery are basically slamming those who do not acknowledge the New Testament - where Obama is at least acknowledging the Old and New. What irritates me about religion are those that think their version is the absolute truth (Dobbs/Minnery as an example) since they are no different then the radical Islamic groups. It was written by illiterate fishermen, altered to take out women who were good, rewritten by Emperor Constantine and modified and rewritten a hundred times. No realist could criticize anyone's interpretation of the bible. As you say "There is only one religion - mine" is not right. The last person that can talk about distorting anything is James Dobson. He lives to distort reality every single day. The problem wasn't that Obama acknowleged the Bible, the problem was is that he was applying it in a distorted context. Eating shellfish, for example, was an old dietary law for ancient Hebrews (and its very possible that THEY didn't even follow that). Obama also tried to apply Jesus' teachings to the military, and they certainly were never meant to be applied in that context. The problem wasn't his acknowledgment, it was his ignorance. It was written by illiterate fishermen, altered to take out women who were good, rewritten by Emperor Constantine and modified and rewritten a hundred times.I'm sorry, but again, this is extremely ignorant. That's all I can say about this. I came in to say something, but jmjoness said it for me. Obama is a politician, he has to appeal to some sort of Christian base. What irritates me about religion are those that think their version is the absolute truth (Dobbs/Minnery as an example) since they are no different then the radical Islamic groups.If you ever hear Dobson call for suicide bombings then you can make that statement without being completely absurd. Onward Christian Zombies. I am a Christian minister and I gotta tell ya, I love the Bible as a wonderful piece of literature and for much the wisdom and guidance it imparts. BUT it was written a very long time ago and, while it was appropriate for the people ot those times, our times are very different and many of the laws and guidelines just don't apply any more. Those that take the Bible word-for-word are missing a big point: The Bible was written in parables and the stories were meant to illustrate something, not to be taken as literal truths. And the Old Testament -- don't get me started! It is outdated, but still included in the Bible for the history and nuggets of wisdom it holds. That has become true now of the New Testament. A Christian minister? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't believe every claim on the internet... Anyway Obama was being extremely biased. He asked what priniciples in the Bible the government should follow, eating shellfish or following the Sermon on the Mount? What about honesty and integrity? What about the idea of not taking revenge on others (America could have used that after 9/11 and Pearl Harbor)? What about the idea that murder is wrong? What about not stealing (Politicans could certainly use this one)? What about treating others as you would have yourself treated? What about meekness, humbleness, genteless, kindness and love for all men (another great example Obama could have used g... What irritates me about religion are those that think their version is the absolute truthThat used to bother me too, until I realized that one was the absolute truth. Now, the thing that irritates is people like you that think that the idea that no absolute truth *is* the absolute truth. Which one is the absolute truth and how did you come up with this answer? If someone wants to think they have the absolute truth that's their decision to make, not anybody else's. As long as they don't call for the murder and slander of others who don't hold to their beliefs it has nothing to do with anyone else. And he's got a point, the idea that there "is no absolute truth" is another "absolute truth". The difference is that the latter is plagued with political correctness and vagueness. For once (and on the record) I agree completely with you jmjones. What I found interesting about the whole thing and with the politics/election in general is that if a candidate does not believe in the New Testament, then the US population considers the person bad. What if they simply supported the Old Testament? What if they simply pretended to believe in the whole Bible deal? What happen when the Mormon candidate was going to run - would he have been totally wrong since one would assume he also believe in the Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible. The problem I have is that people just cannot seem to accept people who are good, kind and genuinely honest (not saying either McCain or Obama are or aren't). Just pointing out that it seems every rel... I understand what you're saying rmowery. But a lot of that is from ordianary (and many times ignorant) Christian people. Dobson wasn't condemning Obama because of his beliefs though. He wasn't even condemning him (condemn is a tad bit strong...). He was pointing Obama out because Obama was making ignorant statements about the Bible (most likely to please the audience he was speaking to), and he was pointing him out for promoting "there is no absolute truth". I didn't agree with everything that Dobson had to say, but I thought he was right on those issues. "No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives." Barack Obama 2006 So much irony there. Even more ironic is that by going after Dobson, Obama may be doing what McCain will have a problem doing, getting conservative Christians out to vote. |
View the Top Clips from June 24, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
