(The whole article warrants a read, but this sample should whet your appetite.)
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
52 comments
Obama owned the Fundies with that speech.
Hey Dobson, you can't cherry pick that book. If you wanna shove Genesis down schoolchildren's throats, you can't ignore the embarrassing shit that's in there too. (like Deuteronomy)
Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who claim they've found it.
I don't believe you, asshole. And you need to learn to read, Jesus says some radical shit that you're too afraid to accept.
"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."
Great! So I suppose Dobson will criticize anyone who uses Leviticus to condemn homosexuality too?
Well, I still don't believe in God, but James Dobson's existence has proven that Satan is real, anyway.
I was wondering when this bag of douche would get mainpaged.
Bravo, JD. You've just set your own cause back by about 20 years.
I just want to know one simple thing:
Where do I get one of those poisonous, hateful, attitudes?
["...deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology..."]
We can't have that, can we, JD?
By the way--when was the last time you stoned an adulterer?
Fundie 1: "Methodists drag biblical understanding through the gutter".
Fundie 2: "No, no. Baptists drag biblical understanding through the gutter".
Fundie 3: "You're both wrong. Catholics drag biblical understanding through the gutter".
Fundie 4: "You're nuts. Presbyterians drag biblical understanding through the gutter".
Fundie 5: "You mean Lutherans drag biblical understanding through the gutter".
(Fundie 1 punches Fundie 5 in the mouth)
(Fundie 5 breaks chair over Fundie 3's head)
(Fundie 2 gives Fundie 1 the finger)
(enter police officers, pepper-spraying everyone ...)
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.
But it's still fine to use Leviticus to bash on gay people, right?
""I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.""
Isn't the gutter where it's normally found?
There is no such thing as a traditional understanding of the bible. It's been cherry picked since it was translated into vernaculars and thus fell out of the control of the Catholic Church, which did maintain a standard interpretation.
Besides, in a country that supposed not to be founded on religion this kind of argument should be disallowed legally. The religion, or lack of, of any presidential candidate should simply not be an issue.
I truly think America is going schizoid over religion. Heaven forbid that religious wars such as Europe experienced, should break out there. As it is, it looks like there is a Fundamentalist Inquisition in the making.
What is "traditional understanding of the Bible?" No two people have ever completely agreed on its content.
Anyhow, it's pretty humorous to see wackos reduced to bickering (yet again) about which verses are "infallibly inspired" and which ones should be torn out of their Bibles. So much for religion as a "unifying force..."
@ Xotan
I, for one, would love it if religion was banned from politics, and I imagine that a lot of politicians actually wouldn't mind either. Unfortunately, there are far too many Americans who would disagree, and who would do anything in their power to weed out the people who support such an idea.
"It would be awesome that at the end of Obama's presidency (if he gets elected), he announced that he was an atheist and proves all the people wrong who say that atheists are immoral and murderers "
They'd just use it to "prove" that atheists are immoral, lying scum. *sigh*
Why is CNN letting a a dickhead with a childbeating fetish; even wrote a book about it) have an outlet?
I don't want hear charles manson's take on obama, neither do I want to hear jimmypoodle dobson's.
*makes wild flopping body language and hand gestures*
*translation:*
ARGH!! YOU'RE SO CLOSE! YOU ALMOST HAD IT FIGURED OUT!!
AAAAAAA*wail of mental anguish*
Mullah Dobson loses his shit over people not having his fucked up view of the Babble.
Jimmy boy, you are a lying hypocritical bigoted control freak. You should be ashamed of yourself, 'doctor'.
"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.
"Traditional" understanding = how you have spun what it says for eons to fit your views and keep sheeple under control.
So, he comes out and says what's in there, without spin, or 'translating' the translation, and it chaps your ass. Need MORE poeple like that.
""Traditional" understanding = how you have spun what it says for eons to fit your views and keep sheeple under control.
So, he comes out and says what's in there, without spin, or 'translating' the translation, and it chaps your ass. Need MORE poeple like that."
Actually, "Traditional" is how the Catholic church used to ban laymen from reading the bible in order to prevent misinterpretation. Sure, sometimes it might have been for control, but at the same time, they have people who devote their lives to the study and interpretation of the thing, and the Dogma of the Catholic church is all heavily based on first principles. Though I'm not Catholic (used to be) I liken this approach to scientific journals. The worst thing to ever happen to science is laymen reading journals. They don't understand them at all, or how to read them, or the fact that a single journal usually means shit all, so they quote out of context and try to use that quote to prove something completely contradictory to the author's point. Same thing with the new "Everyone is just as fit to interpret the bible!" craze. People who have no business interpreting a bible read it, decide what it means (by quote mining), then defend that to the death.
I say if we're going to have Christians anyway, let's get them all back under the Catholic church. At least then we'd have our science (though we'd sadly left with the whole condom thing, though I expect that to change after B vacates the office).
What! Someone is interpreting the bible differently! Quick! Somebody! Call the pope, or the archbishop, or one of the other popes, or another bishop, or basicly any Christian leader, just don't ask two or you'll get different responses.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
