Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Magic of Woodcut

Obama Accused Of Distorting The Bible

Recommended Posts

My dad and I recently read This Article from CNN. It is saying that Ean Evangelist is accusing Obama of distorting the Bible for his ways of theology. If you would read this thoroughly, would this change your mind about Obama being president? This would probably mostly effect the people that despise Obama's perspective of theology, as well as bible scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My dad and I recently read This Article from CNN. It is saying that Ean Evangelist is accusing Obama of distorting the Bible for his ways of theology. If you would read this thoroughly, would this change your mind about Obama being president? This would probably mostly effect the people that despise Obama's perspective of theology, as well as bible scholars.

Isn't that what the majority of the people using the Bible to back up their arguments does?

 

The 'debated' bit is this:

James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

 

In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

 

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "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?

 

...also, I'm not willing to listen to a person that uses sentences such as "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution".

 

Epic lmfao at a comment on CNN: "Dobson is a radical cleric. He is no more an expert on the bible than Bush is an expert on the U.S. constitution."

 

If you would read this thoroughly, would this change your mind about Obama being president?
I read it thoroughly and I have to say that Mr. Dobson really needs help.

 

This would probably mostly effect the people that despise Obama's perspective of theology, as well as bible scholars.
Because YES, SLAVERY SHOULD BE PERMISSIBLE AND ENCOURAGED! How can those *ptooie* liberals NOT realise that selling your daughters should be back into our moral way of life (Ex. 21:7-8) and that raping slaves doesn't count as rape (Lev. 19:20)? :aware:

 

Sarcasm optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible's being distorted by every Christian I talk to, so why should I feel differently about Obama?

 

Anyways, freedom of religion. Presidents have it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not really a definitive bible, tons of people distort it for their own purposes.

 

As for me, it doesn't affect my opinion of Obama in the slightest, because I don't believe what the bible says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give you a large sum of money if you can find me a version of the Bible that hasn't been distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give you a large sum of money if you can find me a version of the Bible that hasn't been distorted.

That's not the debate. The debate is if you would change your mind about Obama. However most people wouldn't because most people don't get into the Bible and believe that it's true, wihch is maybe 5/100 of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give you a large sum of money if you can find me a version of the Bible that hasn't been distorted.

That's not the debate. The debate is if you would change your mind about Obama. However most people wouldn't because most people don't get into the Bible and believe that it's true, wihch is maybe 5/100 of the world.

So you are saying that the abolition of slavery was immoral by Biblical standards and we should lobby for the release of those people condemned for selling their daughters?

 

... :aware:

 

The debate is if you would change your mind about Obama.
Easy, no. Like anyone who had a grasp of civilization would.

 

In the comments aired Tuesday, Dobson said 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.
So if those parts are not relevant...why are they still there...and why has God dictated them...? Time to waste on His part? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible wasn't "distorted" then it would be nothing but a bunch of verses that barely mean anything. All religions based around it have distorted the words in there for their own gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WARNING: RELIGIOUS THEMES!!!1111oneoneonelevenelven111!!!!

 

 

Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, so those sort of laws don't apply to us anymore.

 

 

 

 

I never would support Obama, but he did nothing wrong here. :wizard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't the New Testement a distorted version of the Old?

The writer of Hebrews exclaimed that "The old testament is good, but everything about Jesus is better". So it's not really a distorted version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I would still vote for Barack. Because even politicians have freedom of religion, and plus, not everyone is a Christian! No offense, :aware:

Edited by Hitnrunguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I would still vote for Barack. Because even politicians have freedom of religion, and plus, not everyone is a freakin' Christian!

Even non-Christians still read the Bible, such as false prophets. They change up everything in it and make new laws out of it. For instance, one says that you must follow all of the Ten Commandments to be a Christian. Another false sign. So this debate can continue even without the fact that Christianity has a lot to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, along with most Christians, believe that there are sections of the OT that don't apply anymore. I think it was more for them, at that time, than it is for us, now. But whatever.

 

Anyhow, almost all politicians distort the Bible, and it's usually athiests. Didn't Al Gore quote the Bible as saying, "where your heart is, there your treasure is also"? They tell people they're religious to get as many followers as possible, and because the world is so stupid today, no one notices when they do stuff like this. :aware:

 

I didn't like Obama in the first place, so it doesn't make much difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tired right now. And I can't think. I'm going to answer anyway, though. :aware:

 

Yeah, I concur with Dr. James Dobson. All you people who are making snide comments, please answer me this one question: biblically, how is he wrong?

 

The Bible's being distorted by every Christian I talk to, so why should I feel differently about Obama?

 

Anyways, freedom of religion. Presidents have it, too.

You wouldn't know the bible if it hit you, so you can't make that call.

 

Isn't the New Testement a distorted version of the Old?

No. If it was a genuine question, the Old Testament is the history of the world prior to Jesus's birth. This would cover Creation, the Flood, and the history of God's people up until about 2,000 years ago. The New Testament starts with the four gospels (in order): Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And the events after that.

 

Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, so those sort of laws don't apply to us anymore.

I'm pretty sure Jesus directly says (when confronted by the pharisees or sumfin) that he did not come to change the old laws, but to fulfill the prophecy.

Exactly. You beat me to the punch. Matthew 5: 17-18

 

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not to destroy but to fulfill. For Assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

 

It also goes on into 18-19 talking about that. You are more than welcome to look it up if you think I'm taking things out of context and/or changing the words of the bible. I am using the New King James version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm tired right now. And I can't think. I'm going to answer anyway, though. :aware:

 

Yeah, I concur with Dr. James Dobson. All you people who are making snide comments, please answer me this one question: biblically, how is he wrong?

Mormril out of all my respect for you, I'm at a real loss for words here.

 

The Bible has been twisted time and time again, the original version is inexistant, Hebrew -> Roman -> Greek -> English.

 

The Bible can be interpreted to mean anything you want, but you're telling me you agree with a radical who is just trying to get publicity by annoying canidates? Personnally since if I wanted to I could dig up a Greek version of the Bible and distort the words to make it say homosexuality is ok, but I won't.

 

But you must say do you really think it is ok that they are crossing the line of "seperation between religion and state" here?

 

And he's complaing about a speech made 2 years ago! Wow, you really must want to get famous buddy, wonder if McCain's paying him or he's a member of a racist group >_>.

Edited by Cxkslei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mormril out of all my respect for you, I'm at a real loss for words here.

 

The Bible has been twisted time and time again, the original version is inexistant, Hebrew -> Roman -> Greek -> English.

 

The Bible can be interpreted to mean anything you want, but you're telling me you agree with a radical who is just trying to get publicity by annoying canidates? Personnally since if I wanted to I could dig up a Greek version of the Bible and distort the words to make it say homosexuality is ok, but I won't.

 

But you must say do you really think it is ok that they are crossing the line of "seperation between religion and state" here?

 

And he's complaing about a speech made 2 years ago! Wow, you really must want to get famous buddy, wonder if McCain's paying him or he's a member of a racist group >_>.

That doesn't confirm what I've read about the window. And no, it can't mean anything you want. What they are talking about now is hard to prove, but on most things there is a concrete answer to almost everything from the bible. Just because you can distort the words to say something different, will not prove that the bible is not true.

 

Take out all the political woo-hoo here, and simply put, I agree with Dobson's viewpoint. I think this is a common thing that people try to do. Bring up the shellfish and the mixed cloth... These are things that people bring up almost everytime that we have these debates. And it seems ridiculous.

 

In the comments aired Tuesday, Dobson said 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible's being distorted by every Christian I talk to, so why should I feel differently about Obama?

 

Anyways, freedom of religion. Presidents have it, too.

You wouldn't know the bible if it hit you, so you can't make that call.

And who are you to judge that?

 

Take out all the political woo-hoo here, and simply put, I agree with Dobson's viewpoint. I think this is a common thing that people try to do. Bring up the shellfish and the mixed cloth... These are things that people bring up almost everytime that we have these debates. And it seems ridiculous.

 

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/ *cough cough*

 

You can't pick and choose from the Bible. You have to follow it word for word, or burn in hell suckah. That's right, no mixed cloth, figs, or shellfish for you.

 

If you don't have to stay away from those, then why should I have to refrain from being gay? It just doesn't add up.

Edited by Ubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible's being distorted by every Christian I talk to, so why should I feel differently about Obama?

 

Anyways, freedom of religion. Presidents have it, too.

You wouldn't know the bible if it hit you, so you can't make that call.

And who are you to judge that?

Call it a hunch. :aware: Excuse me, I mean an educated guess.

Edited by mormril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mormril out of all my respect for you, I'm at a real loss for words here.

 

The Bible has been twisted time and time again, the original version is inexistant, Hebrew -> Roman -> Greek -> English.

 

The Bible can be interpreted to mean anything you want, but you're telling me you agree with a radical who is just trying to get publicity by annoying canidates? Personnally since if I wanted to I could dig up a Greek version of the Bible and distort the words to make it say homosexuality is ok, but I won't.

 

But you must say do you really think it is ok that they are crossing the line of "seperation between religion and state" here?

 

And he's complaing about a speech made 2 years ago! Wow, you really must want to get famous buddy, wonder if McCain's paying him or he's a member of a racist group >_>.

That doesn't confirm what I've read about the window. And no, it can't mean anything you want. What they are talking about now is hard to prove, but on most things there is a concrete answer to almost everything from the bible. Just because you can distort the words to say something different, will not prove that the bible is not true.

 

Take out all the political woo-hoo here, and simply put, I agree with Dobson's viewpoint. I think this is a common thing that people try to do. Bring up the shellfish and the mixed cloth... These are things that people bring up almost everytime that we have these debates. And it seems ridiculous.

 

In the comments aired Tuesday, Dobson said 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.

Mormril it would be nice if that was true since I don't even know what antiquated means :aware:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would elect and atheist, so no, I don't give a rat's cabbage about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible's being distorted by every Christian I talk to, so why should I feel differently about Obama?

 

Anyways, freedom of religion. Presidents have it, too.

You wouldn't know the bible if it hit you, so you can't make that call.

And who are you to judge that?

Call it a hunch. :aware: Excuse me, I mean an educated guess.

Seriously, the most arrogant argument a christian can make over a biblical discussion is to say that someone who isn't christian is uneducated. GET OVER YOURSELF! Most of the people who partake in these discussions actually know what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give you a large sum of money if you can find me a version of the Bible that hasn't been distorted.

There have been almost no changes in the bible throughout history (in Hebrew that is), when comparing the dead sea scrolls to the bible we know today you can see that the changes are VERY minimal, a word here and there.

 

Isn't the New Testement a distorted version of the Old?

The new testament has NOTHING to do with the old - story wise. The old testament tells the story about god's nation, as a nation not the story of one single person. the New testament is the story of Jesus.

 

I'm tired right now. And I can't think. I'm going to answer anyway, though. :aware:

 

Yeah, I concur with Dr. James Dobson. All you people who are making snide comments, please answer me this one question: biblically, how is he wrong?

Mormril out of all my respect for you, I'm at a real loss for words here.

 

The Bible has been twisted time and time again, the original version is inexistant, Hebrew -> Roman -> Greek -> English.

 

The Bible can be interpreted to mean anything you want, but you're telling me you agree with a radical who is just trying to get publicity by annoying canidates? Personnally since if I wanted to I could dig up a Greek version of the Bible and distort the words to make it say homosexuality is ok, but I won't.

 

But you must say do you really think it is ok that they are crossing the line of "seperation between religion and state" here?

 

And he's complaing about a speech made 2 years ago! Wow, you really must want to get famous buddy, wonder if McCain's paying him or he's a member of a racist group >_>.

The original version IS Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now thats just sad. Conservatives. :aware: Get over it Dobson! Anyway, I think that although Obama has the right to freedom, he should be careful wat he says about the sacred book. I actually want this guy to win and taking on the Bible like that aint going to help him with the votes. :)

 

Also, I really don't think quoting the Old testament's flaws is going to help. Jesus established the new covenant in the last supper so I think that cancels out old and outdated laws from the past. Example, we don't celebrate sabbath anymore.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, so those sort of laws don't apply to us anymore.

I'm pretty sure Jesus directly says (when confronted by the pharisees or sumfin) that he did not come to change the old laws, but to fulfill the prophecy. In fact, I think the only law he did away with was sacrificing of animals.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Mathew 5:17

 

He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Up until that point, the Israelites were waiting for Jesus, their Messiah, to come, so he is the fulfillment of that anticipation. :aware:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.