When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word....

[IndianaJones]

and that I must be continually open to new revelations - whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion."

Barack Obama

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "Present"

[rockymountaindem]

You should really stop this

because it's making Obama look good, which I don't think is your point.

[IndianaJones]

6. good for those that have moral misgivings about homosexuality and abortion. nt.

[rockymountaindem]

8. Uhhhh, no

Good to those that expect leaders not to take the Bible completely literally.

[IndianaJones]

10. so...you don't actually read what he is saying. nt.

[chascarrillo]

2. So he's not a fundamentalist

That's a bad thing?

[MADem]

3. I think it's a book of stories, cobbled together by people with an agenda

Stories that supported their views of suppressing women and encouraging mindless obedience were included, stories that didn't make their case were excluded.

[theredpen]

27. Oops, they missed a couple

Stories that supported their views of suppressing women ... were included, stories that didn't make their case were excluded.

Explain the books of Esther and Ruth.

[MADem]

39. Exceptions that prove the rule. NT

[theredpen]

40. So the opressive editors of the Bible just overlooked those?

And Judith, too?

These are exceptions that prove the rule is bullshit.

[lastliberalintexas]

45. Judith isn't in the Protestant Bible, btw

Ruth is the story of a fairly submissive woman who foregoes her former identity to cleave to her husband's family after marriage. Yay for feminism, huh?

Esther does show a fairly strong, independent woman- which is why it was so controversial that the text was included by Nicea.

Phoebe was turned into a slave and Mary Magdalene a whore. Great book for women.

[theredpen]

47. So we should spit on whores?

Yeah, according to legend, Mary Magdalene was a whore — and yet Jesus hung around with her anyway. What a misogynist. Also, there is evidence that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. Would it be more feminists for Jesus to have rejected Mary Magdalene as a whore, or — if she was actually his wife — told her to stay home barefoot and pregnant? Either way, He accepted her in His inner circle and Mary joined Him in His ministry along with the men.

Judith isn't in the Protestant Bible, btw

So take it up with the Protestants. Judith was in the canon for centuries before Luther decided to remove it.

Ruth is the story of a fairly submissive woman who foregoes her former identity to cleave to her husband's family after marriage. Yay for feminism, huh?

In the age when Ruth was written, a widow in Ruth's situation would likely have become a beggar or a prostitute in order to survive. What was she supposed to do, get a small business loan and open a boutique?

Ruth's mother in law takes car of her and fixes Ruth up with Boaz who marries her and brings her happiness. A widow finds happiness through the efforts of an ex-mother-in-law who bucks social convention — what does feminism supposedly have against widows or family that this is a failure?

Esther does show a fairly strong, independent woman- which is why it was so controversial that the text was included by Nicea.

And that's the "exception that proves the rule"... to be bullshit.

Deborah was a Judge. That's the equivalent of a king — and let's not forget that she was also a prophet which is the closest you get to sainthood in Judasim. What about the description of the woman in Proverbs 31?

So, according to you, the Jews were not only misogynists, but they were misogynists who were too stupid to keep strong women out of their holy books. Do you have any other equally interesting opinions about the Jews?

[lastliberalintexas]

50. The point is, Magdalene was NOT a whore

King James turned her into one, just as he turned Phoebe into a slave (she was a deacon). The MAN made, written and edited Bible treated women very poorly, go figure. And the patriarchal religion shaped in the worldview of King James has also done its best to subjugate women, continuing into the modern era.

And reading comprehension is your friend.

[theredpen]

51. What?!

King James?

King James turned {Mary Magdalene} into {a whore}

:rofl: Where did you get this fantasy? Do you do all your religious anthropology research in TV Guide?

If, in fact, Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, efforts to conceal that started in the first century. King James was about 15 centuries too late to have any effect on that.

The bottom line is that this attack on Protestantism (as much as I'd love to join in ;) ) is a red herring. The discussion on this side-bar was about "the Bible" — not the King James authorized translation of it.

And reading comprehension is your friend.

Get bent.

[lastliberalintexas]

52. But there is not one Bible

If Christians can't agree amongst themselves as to which holy book should be used, why should a candidate for elected office dare to look to his version in an attempt to impose laws on me? For better or worse, the OP discussed a particular candidate's view of the world through bible colored glasses, and you have helped to prove why the Bible should be kept out of public life.


King James promulgated the most widely used text to be identified as the Bible, thereby helping to cement the image of Magdalene as whore. I didn't address the allegations that she was married to Jesus, only her characterization as prostitute rather than disciple.

And forgive me, for this was not an attack on Protestantism, but on Christianity. Apparently a poor one at that. :(

[theredpen]

57. It's not like there are a zillion different Bibles, however

If Christians can't agree amongst themselves as to which holy book should be used

Your phrasing here implies that there is significant disagreement. Although there are differences in the canons used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, the differences are relatively small. Furthermore, there isn't any significant disagreement over the origins of the different books, just disagreement over which ones belong in the "official version."

For better or worse, the OP discussed a particular candidate's view of the world through bible colored glasses,

Actually, the quote is the candidates hermeneutic — the candidates view of how to read and interpret the Bible, not "the world." The idea that Obama was expressing any opinion of the world — Bible-colored or otherwise — sprang fully-formed from your prejudices and nowhere else.

and you have helped to prove why the Bible should be kept out of public life.

I have? How? By actually knowing something about it?

King James promulgated the most widely used text to be identified as the Bible, thereby helping to cement the image of Magdalene as whore.

Wow. This is a stretch and isn't even close to true. The King James Version (KJV) is used by a minority of the Christian world. The New Revised Standard Edition is much more widely used. Orthodox versions of the New Testament that include the Gospel of Thomas are probably even more popular than the KJV. You're just makin' shit up at this point, aren't you?

And forgive me, for this was not an attack on Protestantism, but on Christianity. Apparently a poor one at that. :(

Well, pig ignorance goes hand-in-hand with poor arguments. There's a shitload to know about the Bible and its origins and I doubt you have any interest in investing the effort in learning any of it. That doesn't mean that you don't have a valid point of view on religion, but stick to promoting what you understand rather than attacking what you clearly don't.

That's my advice, and, yes, I'm using it.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. Why, what a nice, thoughtful, Christian response

The fact that you dispute the prominence and role of King James version of the Bible tells me all I need to know. The differences among Christians might indeed by trifling, but it's enough to have incited wars over the centuries. Translations of the Bible have been wide and varied, often quite different than the original texts. Women who were disciples of a prophet or leaders of a church were morphed into weak or wicked characters (and I haven't even mentioned the story of Jezebel). Thou shall not murder became thou shall not kill- very different meanings for rules of law.

I personally don't care which Bible you pray from or whether you fall to your knees praying to broccoli. I just wish that people on our side of the aisle understood why the more secular among us have a problem with the religiosity of certain Dem campaigns. I expect Bible thumping from Huckabee, not from one of our own.


And in the spirit of agnostic good will, I wish you a good evening.

[theredpen]

60. Seriously, where are you getting this?

The fact that you dispute the prominence and role of King James version of the Bible tells me all I need to know.

No, there's a lot you need to know. Here are some of them:
1) The KJV is specifically an English translation. The majority of the world's Christians do not speak English.
2) The KJV is no longer used by Catholics. There are four times as many Catholics as there are Protestants.

Asserting that the KJV enjoys any meaningful "prominence" shows only that you are completely ethnocentric and woefully misinformed.

The differences among Christians might indeed by trifling, but it's enough to have incited wars over the centuries.

Name one single war that was fought solely over doctrinal differences Christian between sects. Please do not list conflicts that occurred between rival political factions who happened to also fall along religious lines (e.g. the conflict in Northern Ireland). Just name one war that fits these criteria and I'll admit defeat.

Women who were disciples of a prophet or leaders of a church were morphed into weak or wicked characters

Explain Deborah in Judges.

Thou shall not murder became thou shall not kill- very different meanings for rules of law.

Where? No learned theologian would confuse this. Maybe redneck "Bible Churches" where no one had even gradumacated from high school such confusion existed, but amongst serious scholars there was no such transformation. Ever.

I personally don't care which Bible you pray from or whether you fall to your knees praying to broccoli.

Alright, lady... you wanna blaspheme the Flying Broccoli Monster? Them's fightin' words.

I expect Bible thumping from Huckabee, not from one of our own.

I have terrible, terrible, news for you. Hillary goes to church. Edwards goes to church. Jimmy Carter was a devout Baptist. There are more Catholic Democrats than Catholic Republicans. Is it Bible thumping for these people to talk about their spiritual beliefs when asked?

I just wish that people on our side of the aisle understood why the more secular among us have a problem with the religiosity of certain Dem campaigns.

I wish the people on our side didn't base their entire response to religion on the bad experiences they had with Republican fundies. There is a religious left and it's been traditionally opposed to mingling religion and politics. On the other hand, it shouldn't have to keep its religion in the closet in order to be welcome in the Democratic party. I know why you're wary, but you'll have to trust that Obama is not going to be a theocrat. He is an adherent of liberation theology, which you'll find promotes a social agenda that and self-respecting lefty can endorse, even if they don't much cotton to the "theology" part.

[MADem]

64. Catholics represent about half of all Christians, and that number declines daily.

Second point, and you have problems with facts, I see. One that's easily looked up, too. http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

You make stuff up to prove your points. You're just not believable.

[MADem]

63. I think she was his WIFE, myself. Who would follow a gay Jewish guy back in those days?

Jeez was definitely married--he woulda been a pariah had he not been. Hell, they were shitty to gay people, the bums--see Leviticus!

[MADem]

62. No, that's called "throwing a bone to a sucker."

Or a whole gender of suckers. Makes 'em more willing to submit graciously to their husbands, a la Huckabee, see?

[Cameron27]

4. hmmm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Hmmm..... when I read the Bible, I read it knowing it was a series of writings by a bunch of men

Bearded men. Men in ancient times. Kinda like one would read any ancient text.

[pansypoo53219]

9. why i am reading the

LOL version.
and my blog has LOL bibell cherch on sundayz.

[RiverStone]

12. Yep. Archaic, sexist, violent, fantasy....

To each his or her own. Though I tend to believe John Lennon had it right when he said imagine no religion.

Way too many have died in the name of religion.

Imagine :think:

[hayu_lol]

13. Women in biblical times...

were no more valuable than a table and chair or some goats or what have you...purely chattels.

Things didn't change until the old religions began to lose out to people who not only could think independently, but were discovering the truth about the world, how it works, its position in the universe, and understanding of the mechanisms by which all these 'biblical' wonders actually happened...including us don't ya know.

Obama goes a bit too far into religion for my tastes...and bright free women are just one result of ignoring the old teachings that previously kept them down.

Choice is neither a moral decision nor a religious one. It comes with freedom to think, act, and be--a free independent being.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. I agree. Obama needs to take his religion and keep it to himself. nt

[Critters2]

41. Obama's church was the first to ordain women in the modern era.

You'd think a sexist would find a more comfortable fit.

[Didereaux]

7. that is Bush & Co approach to the Constitution. Wonder if it is Obamas' as well?

edit pseelng

[chascarrillo]

14. You're a strict constructionist?

Say "hi" to Scalia and Thomas for me.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Actually, it's the opposite. They explicitly do not believe it is a living document,

but rather are strict constructionists. If you don't believe the Constitution is a living document, say goodbye to your right to privacy (and everything that flows from it).

[tammywammy]

38. No, that's the opposite of the way Bush looks at the Constituiton

Bush is a strict constitutionalist, meaning exactly as written. Obama's for a "living" Constitution, thus the right to privacy.

[Warpy]

11. In other words, it's subjective morality

and nobody's got a right to pronounce his interpretation as set into stone and the only interpretation allowable for anyone else in the world.

Yeah, I can live with that.

I just wonder if Obama's antiabortion doctor can.

[Didereaux]

22. No, just not to high on the idea of willy-nilly manipulations of important things.

The framers went to great lengths to prevent the 'hero' or the 'idea' of the moment from being able to easily manipulate the Constitution. But in a way yes I am a strict constructionist as opposed to the liokes say a Scaalia who adhers to the legal dictum that the Constitution should be viewed in the framework of its construction...of course, Scalia annoints himself the sole judge of just what that construction is.

I also believe that the framers were very much correct in their fears of the smelly and ill-educated masses...proof of how much damge they can do in a short period of time is amply exampled in the electing of Bush, twice(or the allowing him to steal it twice, same difference).

[Warpy]

29. Unfortunately for your point of view, the installation of Stupid

into office twice was orchestrated precisely by the people the framers found most capable of steering the ship of state, the more monied classes who owned the greater and more profitable part of the country.

The smelly and ill educated voters had other ideas, but were prevented from exercising them by vote caging, illegal voter list purges, and outright theft through illegally programmed voting machines.

If anything vindicates the wisdom of universal suffrage, it's the theft of elections by the current crime cartel.

If anything condemns it, it's the two elections of Ronald Reagan. The people can be wrong. They just won't be consistently wrong, which is why the cartel had to act in 2000 and 2004.

[Didereaux]

30. No, untrue on two counts...

First the masses one. If a large number of the masses did not support Bush then who cast the ballots(the real ones) for him. Further more who are these people that at one point gave him over 60% approval ratings, who are the 20 million who listen to Limbug? And the others who watch O'reilly, read Coulter. Yes, the elections were stolen I think, but they didn't have to tamper with more than 1% of the tally, in which case 50% of the electorate fit the stupid smelly masses category in 2004(I will allow some slop over of honjest mistake for 2000, by some)

Now as to the monolithic CORPORATE Structure of which you speak. Nothing and I mean nothing is further from the truth: Nothing monolithic in the least. At present it is two disparate groups, who absolutely hate one another. Conventional corporations, the retailers, the consumer manufacturers, the shippers in short the American Can, Johnson & Johnson general Foods, Procter & Gambles profit greatest on the status quo, on stability, when it is stable and they are top dog they can control prices, and precisely compute risks , all sorts of business stuff...in a stable world they thrive and prosper as obscenely as the second group does in times of instability. The second ggroup are johnny-come-latelys, the true money and power behind the Neo-CONS. Dallas financials, Halliburton and all its myriad subsidiaries, rogue petroleum billionaires, and at least half of the major defense contractors from the old days. these people need wars, they need disruption of the status quo in order to one, steal the national treasuries blind by maintaining control of governments through the spreading of fear amongst the populaces.

This shadowy corporate war is going to enter the daylight if there is the slightest chance that another Neo-CON stooge or sympathizer will be elected. Why do you think Bloomberg is holding meetings and such? Why are so many obvious old corporate types or their political stooges gathering? This is the group for the stability, and old status quo. They are out to absolutely decimate the radicals and once again regain control of the piggy bank. Well if all that is true then it is just pigs of differing flavors. No, the old boys new enough to realize that if you squeeze the goose to hard it will die, the old corps know that if you maintain the goose on at least some semblance of a balanced diet it theoretically will continue to lay forever.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that at this moment our goose is starting to turn brown and if we aren't removed from the oven now we will be consumed to the last morsal and the Neo-CON corps will move on to other nations and continue the warring and pillaging.

Some might call this all conspiracy crap, I don't, it's just good old fashioned business!

[Occam Bandage]

15. So Obama isn't a fundamentalist? Is that supposed to be bad?

[IndianaJones]

17. If you believe homosexuality is immoral, what is the difference? nt.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Please provide portion of quote indicating Obama believes homosexuality is immoral.

[Critters2]

42. Obama's church doesn't teach that homosexuality is immoral.

It was the first to ordain an openly gay man, The Rev. Bill Johnson, in 1972. First to approve Marraige Equality. Not a homophobic bunch.

[Vickers]

19. That does it...I'm voting for Edwards.

:patriot:

[chascarrillo]

20. See? The politics of slime works.

Good job, IndianaJones.

[Occam Bandage]

21. You want a fundamentalist? I don't think Edwards will help you there either. Perhaps Huckabee?

[Vickers]

32. What the fuck are you talking about?

And who stole your sense of humor?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

33. Obama claims that he is not a fundamentalist in OP. You claim that means you're voting Edwards.

You can claim that was a joke, but many others (including OP) seem to think OP's quote is somehow damning.

[Vickers]

35. OK, you gave a serious reply, so I'll try to explain this.

The OP is a Clinton supporter.

The OP posts something to make me dislike Obama.

The OP's intention is to somehow drive me from Obama and into the arms of Clinton.

But alas! I post that I am being pushed to Edwards! Their plan has been foiled!

Regards,

Vickers

P.S. I couldn't give less of a fuck about the negative posts from the various supporters here on DU (other than a chance to be sarcastic to them).

Hope this helps.

[ZombieHorde]

54. That does help.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.

[Critters2]

43. Edwards' church teaches

and I quote, "Homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith."

[killbotfactory]

23. Yep, he's not a fundy-nut

Thanks for pointing that out.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. Then, serious question, why does he define himself by the bible enough to call himself a christian?

It sounds like he could just as easily be a "lesbianfriend-ist" or a "doctoropposedtoabortion-ist."

[killbotfactory]

28. No, he is just open to re-evaluating his beliefs

he's not a close minded fool, in other words.

[HughMoran]

36. I hope Christianity isn't that black and white!

Kind of an odd question you pose there.

[zeemike]

25. What that says to me is

That Obama, like most christians have no clue what the bible is all about.
But that is not hard to believe if he went to the average church today, you can't learn things from someone that does not know themselves.
Most of the bible is history whether you think it accurate or not. And one does not read an account of history and think it a "Living Document"
Can you imagine reading "The Rise And Fall Of the Roman Empire" over and over again hoping to have a new revelation?
There are parts of the bible that are not historical and do merit study for new revelations, but they are not the commandments of God but his revelations to one man, who imparts to us in the best way he can it's meaning.

[terisan]

26. New revelations? sounds Mormon. nt

[LucyParsons]

31. When I read the Bible, I am continually amazed that people think it's the best we can do

Seriously. The Bible has a few good bits, but it's mostly violent, primitive crap.

If you're offended, too bad. There's a difference between harm and offense. You have no right not to be offended.

This kind of crap really makes me like Obama less and less.

[LeftyMom]

37. So some of his best friends are lesbians?

:rofl:

[Critters2]

44. His church (which is also my church) was the first to ordain openly gay people.

Believe it or not.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. And the Methodist church opposed the Iraq War

Lotta influence that had on its most high profile member. :shrug:


I still don't have a candidate, but I must say that the religiosity of Obama's campaign is thebiggest negative.

[theredpen]

48. self-delete

I was confused as to whom you were referencing as a Methodist.

[ruggerson]

49. And it supports marriage equality at the national level

n/t

[Critters2]

53. Yes we do. Thanks for noticing.

My congregation does at the local level, too.

[ZombieHorde]

55. That sounds good to me.

I would love to hear more people make such statements. I support DK but I have been finding myself leaning Obama. Thanks for the post. K&R

edit to add that I can not recommend because this post is too old.

[ThomCat]

58. When I read the bible it's with the belief

that it's a hodge-podge of fables and moralizing tales written by nomadic tribesmen long ago, and edited by scribes and priests for long-ago political purposes.

There's no more truth in it than there is Shakespear's collected writings, and perhaps less. :shrug:

[theredpen]

61. You... you mean... I won't go to heck if I eat a cheeseburger?!

Dude, you're blowing my mind.