MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist
In his "Rewrite" segment last night, MSNBC's "Last Word" host Lawrence O'Donnell pounded out a 9-minute-long sermonette against conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
O'Donnell slammed Limbaugh as biblically illiterate, reacting to a monologue from his April 25 program in which Limbaugh complained about liberals co-opting Jesus Christ for political purposes in the federal budget debate, posing questions such as "What Would Jesus Cut" from the budget.
"What would Jesus take?" Limbaugh countered, answering "nothing." O'Donnell vehemently disagreed, going on to cite Scripture references -- divorcing them from context -- in order to argue Jesus was a fan of "progressive taxation," among other things.
[Video posted after page break]
"The New Testament does have an answer to Rush's question, 'What would Jesus take?' and it's not one Rush is going to like," O'Donnell began, adding smugly, "And since he obviously has no working command of the Bible, it will surely shock him because he will be hearing it now for the first time."
"The answer is everything, not 35 percent, not 39.6 percent. One hundred percent," O'Donnell continued, referring to marginal tax rates for top income-bracket earners, citing as his proof text a passage from Mark 10 in which a rich man comes up to Jesus and asks "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
O'Donnell then selectively edited Jesus's answer:
Go and sell all your possession and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven...
But right after the ellipsis, verse 21 continues "and come, follow me."
O'Donnell also ignored the thrust of the story in context, which is the high personal cost in this age of following Jesus, but the eternal inheritance that awaits those who abandon all to follow Jesus, whose kingdom, Jesus himself repeatedly said, was "not of this world."
But alas, O'Donnell is concerned not with rendering unto Christ but rendering unto Caesar.
"It seems very clear that Jesus would be cool with a 39.6 tax bracket for those making over $250,000," O'Donnell concluded from the text. What's more:
Well, it was as if Jesus was talking to Rush. As the story continues in the gospel according to St. Mark, "...but at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to his disciples, How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Once again, O'Donnell left out the full context, stopping at verse 25. A few verses later, Mark records that Jesus's disciples "were exceedingly astonished, and said to him 'Then who can be saved?'" to which Jesus answered "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
It's impossible for O'Donnell to know Rush's heart and if it's right with God, but again, O'Donnell's concern is not fidelity to the context of the passage but hijacking Jesus Christ for a political pontification.
O'Donnell continued his shoddy exegesis of Scripture:
That`s not the only clue we have in the New Testament about what would Jesus take. Jesus also said, "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
O'Donnell was quoting Luke 14:33, ripping it out of context. The preceding verses (25-32) make clear the concern is not just material, but immaterial, calling on followers of Christ to love Christ more than blood relative and if called to, shed their blood as martyrs for His sake:
Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
There's no indication a similar fealty is commanded by Christ to the state, to Caesar, but again, why stop when you're on a roll?:
That means you, Rush. And that means everything. Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything. You can be a radio talk show host and you can make your 50 million dollars a year. But you cannot do that and be a disciple of Christ if you keep all of your 50 million dollars a year.
O'Donnell continues, ripping another passage out of context (emphasis mine)
While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, he was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax. Jesus actually said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything, all she had to live on."
What would Jesus take? Obviously, he would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear Christian philosophical basis of a progressive income tax; 10 percent on low incomes, 35 percent on high incomes is the current structure.
And that passage from Mark 12:43-44 advocates progressive income taxation how? The widow gave ALL she had to live on while the rich gave generously out of their wealth. Seems like a regressive tax system to me, the widow didn't get an earned income tax credit!
But seriously, the passage is not about tax structures for civil government, but rather the heart-based motivation for giving. The widow gave out of a worshipful gratitude to God, the rich gave out of a show of their wealth. That's the point.
What's more, shouldn't this passage bother socialists like O'Donnell?
This same Jesus who chased moneychangers out of the Temple did nothing to redistribute wealth from the rich to the widow. He sat by as a widow gave away her last mite to the Temple treasury and the rich did nothing to give their money to the widow. What's up with that?
As to his claim that progressive taxation is the "philosophical basis of a progressive income tax," O'Donnell failed to offer evidence that the early church in the New Testament expected a higher percentage of income donated to the church from the rich than the poor.
Indeed, passages in the New Testament about giving focus on the motive of giving, not cold hard numbers. As St. Paul wrote the church in Corinth (emphasis mine):
The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Give as he's decided in his heart? Not under compulsion? Cheerfully? When does that apply to anyone regarding any tax?
Sure, the Bible commands Christians to pay their taxes and fees to the government as they are due, but there's nothing in those passages advocating the Roman government to adopt certain tax or budget priorities. Indeed, if O'Donnell wants to draw political conclusions from Bible passages, there's a libertarian/conservative argument to be made from this passage that government's sole objective is punish evildoers, not redistributing wealth:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. [Romans 13:1-7]
O'Donnell concluded by asserting that Rush had "lie[d] about what Jesus Christ said" which is "one line they [Rush's Christian listeners] will not let you cross" nor would O'Donnell.
Actually, Larry, I think discerning Christians who know their Bible will weigh your screed in the balance and find it lacking.
# # # Please consider donating to our efforts using the form below # # #
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I know that when......
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:44am.
I know that when I want clarification on the Gospel, my first thought is, "Where can I find a self-avowed socialist?"
BWAA-hahahahahahahahahahaha!
There is absolutely nothing to which the progressive/liberal/socialist/Marxists will not stoop.
Yes, I go to
Submitted by bsny on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:04pm.
a thrice divorced drug addict myself
For the record, Charlie Sheen
Submitted by fitzfong on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:43pm.
For the record, Charlie Sheen has only divorced twice. He's separated from his 3rd wife. But I get your point.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Exactly
Submitted by GregE on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:16pm.
Yep, first place I turn.
To O'Donnell, not only was Jesus a Socialist, he's also come back to be president.
Topics
Submitted by dmntd1 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:41am.
This is one of those topics that really tends to burn my bum.
Jesus wasn't a socialist. He clearly differentiated between rendering unto God and rendering unto the government. He believed that we should, on a personal basis, help the poor, the widows, the orphans and the old.
In a weird manner of speaking, he did advocate commune-ism. Not the Stalin-style, but the voluntary 'live as a group, to help each other out' style. The type where, if you didn't work (but were able) you would be kicked out of the commune. Of course, the New Testament commune was actually the Christian church... the type of place where we are COMMANDED to help those that required help. That command was to be followed cheerfully, and out of love and compassion for all.
I've never been happy about paying taxes. That's not cheerful giving. That's government taking.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Doesn't that.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:47am.
Doesn't that photo of Larry remind you of Max Headroom? And now, a word from Zic-Zac.
Ditto
Submitted by Snilwar4 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:17pm.
Good one, Max Headroom. Didn't know a liberal would even attempt to read the Bible. There are scary ideas there about God creating man and the earth, and many ideas that run contrary to their progressive philosophy. Well, I am sure they will do their best to coop the Bible, it is the Devil's world, so why be suprised.
Bible
Submitted by Gothampc on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 11:55am.
I went to the Lawrence O'Donnell School of Theology
And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5)
Then said Jesus, Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:37)
That's funny.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:26pm.
Good one!
Barack is a Biblical name...
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 4:08pm.
I was listening to yesterday's Daily Audio Bible podcast & it was talking about Barack & Deborah in the OT. I looked it up:
Comments from 11/2008!
Barack is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is “flash of lightning”. In the Bible (Judges 4:6) Barack is a valiant fighting man who cooperated with the prophetess Deborah to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds. I could stop there but the world is fixated on Hussein which is Arabic meaning good or handsome. So you see Barak was destined to be a good and handsome man that would rise like a flash of lightning to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds.
Luke 10:18 "I beheld Satan as lightening fall from Heaven"
Upon my research of the Barack name earlier today (pre-poll closing)- I, too found that Barack (in many different spellings) means "one who bows to the Lord" in Hebrew and also "flash of lightning" in Hebrew. I, too, made the connection with Luke 10:18 and also would like to add the following:
Barack= Flash of lightning
Hussien= Good, handsome, small
Obama= he (from O of the Luo tribe where Obama is a descendent) and leans, bends, crooked (from bam, but assuming a descendent of his may have been born with a bent or crooked leg).
Do your research folks. This is not funny- it's fact. We are in a world that is spiritually on the fence. We lean on issues, are crooked in actions and are bent on values. We are superficial when it comes to looks and believe our good deeds will save us. Why then shall we be surprised that our "flashy" President-elect would be someone other than one that meets us with a spiritual attitude that "leans" towards self and away from God?
Flash of lightning= temporary light (Barack)
Light of the world= Eternal light (Jesus)
Handsome, good= personal desires for self
Humble, righteous= Christ's desires for us
Crooked, bent= Barack's moral values
Straight= God's (true Christian) values
Above snips from: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/somerset-ky/TBMQ5UK2LFHDH5CLM
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
If I may, Larry.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:01pm.
Please don't tempt God by using Scripture for your own illicit ends.
As has been noted, you've twisted what Jesus had to say, thus missing the real point.
You, Larry, are the Biblical illiterate. Unfortunately.
--Mike
John 12
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:09pm.
The reason for giving as Jesus taught was to benefit the giver. The benefit to the receiver was an additional bonus. Jesus was not trying to end poverty with his teaching on giving but teaching that His followers had to choose where their true loyalty was, things of this earth or the Kingdom of Heaven.
But the key to giving as Jesus taught is that the giver had to voluntarily give up his wealth. Having it forcefully taken from a person eliminates any spiritual connection.
Jesus Anointed at Bethany
1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pinta of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.b” 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “[It was intended] that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
thank you!
Submitted by michiganruth on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:55pm.
THANKS! I knew this verse but was too lazy to look up the citation.
people like the MSNBC pack don't really care about correctly interpreting scripture. in fact, the only time they refer to it is to tell us how Jesus would be a liberal Democrat. any day now, they will probably be telling us how Jesus also supported a Judenrein Palestinian state!
Lawrence...
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:10pm.
O'Donnell should first examine the extremely large mote in the eye of liberals before criticizing others.
You Democrats want to control who gives how much and to whom -- that is your goal and your only real goal as Democrats and you Lawrence (and your colleagues) pompously want to determine both because of your "devineness" or your "intelligence" or your "specialness."
What O'Donnell is doing is
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:16pm.
What O'Donnell is doing is called eisegesis which is reading one's agenda INTO a passage rather than taking out what the passage reveals. This is extremely poor hermeneutics but no one is going to accuse O'Donnell of being a Christian theologian.
Thus O'Donnell reveals himself to be the Biblical illiterate who is dishonest in his attempts to distort Scripture to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
You nailed it
Submitted by Conservator on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:32pm.
You deserve an Amen Ditto for your concise and accurate comment.
What's ironic and revealing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:18pm.
What's ironic and revealing is the name of the segment is "Rewrite" which is exactly what O'Donnell attempted to do with Scripture.
I doubt....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:26pm.
either of his viewers would care.
Right on Beukeboom!
Submitted by Order270 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:46pm.
In fact, I would go one step further and say Mr. O'Donnell is committing heresy. He skedaddled past the meaninglessness of money in terms of eternal salvation in a feeble attempt to bend Scripture into the political policy of control.
Mr. O'Donnell, God's currency is not in cash; it is in blood!
Outsourcing the "Sermon-on-the-Mount"
Submitted by AMR1960 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:28pm.
Yeah O'Dumold...That's what Jesus was saying in the Sermon on the Mount, that we were to outsource a private & individual duty to the less fortunate to Big Government.
Who-da-thunk-it? The path to Heaven involves outsourcing the very personal charge & challenge conveyed by us by Christ, in the Sermon, instead using high taxes, collected by Godless Collectivism (Big Government), which uses the monies, mostly as a means to advance their war against the Faith & Values culture!
_____________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
Well put
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:07pm.
It was mentioned here: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters [Hardcover]
Arthur C. Brooks
That Taxes are NOT Charity. Charity must be given voluntarily/choice. not taken at the will of the government. (he is nicer then how i paraphrased it.)
highly recommend reading it. i would loan any of you my copy, but i loaned it to a friend already.
Socialism
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:23pm.
Puts government before God. Does Larry really believe Jesus would approve?
Larry is a buffoon.
I love Liberals quoting the Bible
Submitted by wingnut55 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:26pm.
Liberals seem to never get it right. Maybe the key word is "Right". Jesus wouldn't be for giving anything since He always has it all. He is just loaning it to us for a short time. Of course Larry missed the point. He wan't looking for Jesus' point, but only his own. Rush is not perfect in his Bible knowledge, but he is way ahead of Larry.
Liberals always use the Bible
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:28pm.
Liberals always use the Bible in the exact same way they accuse Christians of doing, picking a few words here and there to support THEIR beliefs.
The purpose of love
Submitted by Zepppo on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:40pm.
The purpose of all giving passages is love. I Cor 13:3 says you can give everything, even your own body but if it is wothout love,it is worthless. Anyone who thinks that the people doling out money to the "poor" for the govenment are doing it out of love has never visited these offices. And anyone who thinks that they pay taxes out of love is not paying attention to the other uses it is used for (abortions, forcing homosexual teachings on school children, etc). We don't even want to discuss the psychological and social ramifications of our current welfare system beause then even this giving seems unloving.
Find a verse where Jesus actually tells someone to make sure that another person gives to the poor. This is the verse socialist need to truly justify their actions. Unitl then, I think they need to consider the many verses that refer to what happens to those who use scriptures to promote their own (not God's) ways.
They are both spouting nonsense
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:43pm.
I think it is a bad idea, for both parties involved, to use a text that is almost 2,000 years old, written for another time and another culture, to argue tax policy in 2011 America. It is anachronistic, to say the least, as first century Palestinians and Greco-Romans would have known nothing about capitalism, socialism, or other modern economic systems.
Our current Country & culture
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:35pm.
Our current Country & culture would not exist remotely the same if not for the Bible. Very relevant to life today. I can witness to that and I would like to thank http://www.dailyaudiobible.com/ for their daily Bible podcast. Very nice to listen to while working.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Ahhh, yes.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:44pm.
The old "it's too old to be relevant any more" argument. The same faulty logic of the Left that says the Constitution of the United States is no longer relevant because, after all, "it was written over 200 years ago."
Also, you may want to write this down for future reference (it'll make your argument less weak), the Bible is over 4500 years old.
Now, pay attention, Lefty. I'm going to instruct you, since you've shown by your post you know so little about so much. Many things have changed in the last 5,000 years, but man and truth are not among those things. Man still needs God's guidance since his natural tendencies are not all that good and we (Americans) need the guidance of the Constitution to protect us from a tyrannical government.
Gee
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 4:26pm.
Golly gee Cowboy, I am so happy you are here to educate me! Nonetheless, since the article was talking about Jesus, I assumed we were talking about the New Testament, the oldest portions of which are only about 2000 years old. We could quibble, of course, and argue that the New Testament as a whole is even younger than that, considering that the list of texts included in the New Testament wasn't even settled upon until the fourth century at the Council of Rome (382 CE). Oh, while I am at it, you are far too generous with the age of the Old Testament as well considering that the Israelites aren't even identifiable in the historical record until the first millennium BCE. The oldest portions of the Old Testament (the song of Deborah, for instance) only date from the 9th century BCE. The vast majority of the text is even later than that.
You have a terrible sense of history if you think humans and human societies have not (and do not) change over time. The morals and values of ancient Israelite society are certainly not modern moral values, otherwise we would all be practicing polygyny and marrying the women that we rape.
Anti-Christian and anti-Semitic much, Justin?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:51pm.
Technologies may have advanced, but the human heart has remained unchanged, thanks.
And since Biblical values aren't the herrings you offered, you might want to try more a more fact-based response next time. To what "modern moral values" do you refer that are superior to the Biblical code? Sexual deviancy? Throwaway marriages? Absentee parenting? Abortion-on-demand?
Human beings are just as imperfect now as they were then; the Bible's message is just as relevant, if not more so.
And next time, try "B.C." and "A.D." instead of the naive "CE" and "BCE," impotent attempts to pretend that we're not using the life of Jesus Christ as the literal turning point for the calendar.
--Mike
Anti-Semitism?
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:14pm.
That is a pretty serious charge, so I think you ought to explain how you think I am anti-Semitic and how I am anti-Christian.
The problem with biblical values is that people pick and choose and rarely define what they mean by the term. Not to covet thy neighbors wife is in the same Bible that describes rules for the manner in which one is to treat one's slaves. So tell me, which of these are "biblical values?" And since the Bible is just as valid for BCE cultures as it is today, and since values, morals, people and cultures apparently don't change, can you tell me where I can get my own slaves? When I have them I will make sure I treat them in the manner that the Bible describes, it is the only moral thing to do after all.
I get mine at SlaveMart®
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:30pm.
Right now, they're only in the Northeast, but they do have some fairly aggressive expansion plans vis-a-vis franchising.
Simple. Just apply for
Submitted by ant on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:24pm.
Simple. Just apply for welfare, and if you fit the criteria for "victim", you will be accepted and....voila..somewhere, somebody is now you're slave, working for you with no compensation.
You missed your own anti-Semitism?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:51pm.
Israelite culture, in your bigoted view, was typified by sex and violence.
Polygamy and rape.
How much more vile did you think you needed to be?
And show me--anywhere in either Testament of the Bible, Justin--where slavery is advocated.
Anywhere.
--Mike
Gall
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:22pm.
Let me just say, if you have the gall to accuse somebody of Antisemitism, you better damn well have something to back it up. Simply commenting on obvious statements made in the Bible does not constitute Antisemitism. I did not write the Bible, nor am I simply making this material up. Moreover, Antisemitism is usually defined as bigotry toward Jews, however, as it relates to this discussion, Judaism only began to emerge after the Babylonian captivity. Judaism as we would understand it today did not appear until the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. Ancient Israel culture was not Jewish. Also, the ancient Israelites were no better or no worse than their neighbors, who were also slave-holding, polygamous nations. Typified by sex and violence? Show me a Western culture that isn't! The Old Testament is dripping in sex and violence, have you ever read it?
Here are some of your ancient Near Eastern values:
Exodus 21:1-2: "When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years" (NRSV)
Leviticus 25:44-46: "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. (NRSV)
Exodus 21:7-11: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed
Just in case you say "well that is the Old Testament, which is superceded by the New":
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven." (NRSV)
Regarding polygyny in the Bible, I want you to turn to Genesis 29 and 30 and count up how many wives Jacob has.
Regarding rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."
Not only is the poor girl raped, she is sold to the man who raped her to be his wife! How can you not view that as repulsive?
You're a confirmed anti-Semite and anti-Christian, then.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 4:29am.
Thanks for putting aside any doubt on the subject.
Do you even read what you cut-and-paste, or do you just blithely mouse-click away?
--Mike
No cut and paste
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:51am.
No cut and paste brother, 8 years of graduate school in biblical studies.
Let's just say you didn't get your money's worth.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:51pm.
There's studying the Bible, and there's doing your dead-level best to vivisect it.
You fall, evidently, into the unfortunate latter category.
--Mike
Yeah, right.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:37am.
Eight years of graduate school in biblical studies? Yeah, right. Regardless of your ident which comes from HBO's "Carnivàle", I see nothing in evidence of your alleged "biblical studies."
Regarding Deut 22:28-29, you
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:40am.
Regarding Deut 22:28-29, you purposely left out the preceading verses. In doing so you clearly mean to skip the mention of how if there was rape, the man is to be killed, BUT if the girl let the guy have sex with her (consentual), they have to be married. The rest of your referrences are just as weak.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Rather than argue the media
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:45pm.
Rather than argue the media arm-chair biblical scholar on his "interpretation" of scripture, I merely have one question for O'Donnell, because this question is fully germane to his modernist "thesis":
Do you believe that Jesus is the incarnate Word that the Evangelist John spoke of?
"In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum..."
If O'Donnell (or any other "social-gospel" liberal) does believe and profess this, then we have a basis for rational, good-faith dialog.
However, if he does not believe this, then he has no leg to stand on. Jesus, if he ever existed, is dead, his bones probably now long decomposed. So (God help me) who gives a rat's ass "what Jesus would do?" It absolutely matters not. End of story.
"Jesus, if he ever existed,
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:44pm.
"Jesus, if he ever existed, is dead, his bones probably now long decomposed."
FYI there is more "proof" of Jesus is real than you realize it seems. Also proof that he rose again as there were about 500 eye witnesses. Not decomposed if you are alive and well. How did his disciples go from hiding in a locked room after his death, to turning the world on its head after he came to them? And were they willing to die and be persecuted for a dead person? That does not make sense. I would not be a Christian if he was dead, as he would be a liar.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
correct
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 7:56pm.
Historically speaking, we can be sure Jesus existed. But furthermore, historically speaking, the books of the New Testament Canon are completely reliable sources -- that includes the resurrection accounts, mind you. Therefore, there are good reasons to believe in Jesus as Christ strictly from a historical standpoint.
But I was arguing from a philosophical standpoint. If somebody doesn't believe in the Divinity of Christ, then they really don't have any basis using Him as a definitive moral authority.
I followed your argument
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:30pm.
And it was very well done. I often encounter this when an atheist tries to adjust my reading of scripture to read it as happenstance.
Quasi-socialist
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:43pm.
That's an excellent example punctuating the point!
Thanks for the comment (and the compliment).
Josephus refered to Jesus
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:57pm.
Josephus refered to Jesus twice in his book of Antiquities. Also, he wrote of John the Baptist, Pilot, James, brother of Jesus, high priests and the religious sects of the time. So there is proof that Jesus did live.
And for my money, he lives today and sits at the right hand of God.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
"...if he ever existed, is dead.."
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:56pm.
By your rules that would leave you, too, out of the conversation, wouldn't it?
All believers know Jesus lives, and therefore his bones are not decomposed. We serve a risen savior.
It doesn't matter if
Submitted by jdhawk on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:48pm.
It doesn't matter if O'Donnell is using Jesus or Mickey Mouse to argue for ever more taxes, it just won't work. If the top 1% of wage earners were taxed at 100%, it will still not make up the shortfall of $1.8 trillion dollars in deficit spending for this year alone nor make up for the 3.5 trillion in deficit spending this congress and duhbama has authorized the last two years. Our country will have amassed over $5 trillion dollars in deficit spending by the end of this year. The next and the next after that will amass another $3 trillion dollars in defict spending unless something is done to reduce spending.
O'Donnell is using a variant on tactics that were developed by communists in Central America in the 1980's. It is known as liberation theology. It was adopted by the so-called Reverand Wright, pastor of duhbama.
so....
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:26pm.
we need more rich. If everyone in the country sends me $1, i would be willing to be taxed at 99% :) I need some walking around money. or 3 million in walking around money.
:)
O'donnell confuses "give" and "take."
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:26pm.
What would Jesus take? Nothing. That's obvious.
What would Jesus advise? Donate your money to those who need it. As O'Donnell points out, Jesus said: "Go and sell all your possession and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven..." That's advice to donate, not confiscate.
What does donating all of your money to the poor have to do with taxes, with the confiscation of wealth by the government? Nothing!
O'Donnell just can't seem to understand the difference between giving your wealth away and having a government take it from you. I don't know if he's just confused, or down right stupid!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Almost as bad is the "Jesus
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:32pm.
Almost as bad is the "Jesus was a hippie" argument you hear.
What about the parable of the talents?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:39pm.
Matthew 25:14-30. The master left on a trip and gave his three servants bags of talents. To the first, he gave 5 bags; to the second, 2 bags; and to the third, 1 bag. The first servant "invested" the 5 bags and made 5 more in return; the second man invested 2 bags and made 2 more; but the third man buried his 1 bag in the ground and only saved it. When the master returned, he praised the first two servants, who enlarged the master's wealth entrusted to them, and promised them more responsibilities in the future. But he chastised the third servant for being timid and not "growing" his wealth!
Oh, right. I forgot. It's judgmental to praise one person's talent and denigrate another person's talent. And being judgmental is wrong, because it's so elitist and, well, judgmental.
(BTW, the modern word "talent," meaning a skill or expertise in some field, derives from the ancient meaning of "a weight of money," specifically to this passage from Matthew.)
awesome!!! don't forget, the
Submitted by sometimesright on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:25pm.
awesome!!! don't forget, the master in turn took the single talent his servant buried and gave it to the servant who was entrusted with 5. libs hate that part, God rewards the wealthy too.
Can anyone watch with a straight face??
Submitted by Fraybird on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 1:52pm.
How many viewers actually witnessed what that yapping chihuahua had to say live? Tell me Lawrence, what does the Bible say about envy?
Ah Yes,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:00pm.
Jesus was all about taking from one and giving it to another, he was all about imposition and use of force. Jesus was totally against ownership of everything from land to wealth to free will itself and the personal responsibility that goes along with it.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuure, Lawrence, you just keep preaching that foolishness. Go for it.
Larry Has...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:33pm.
Larry has been quoting the Communist Manifesto. He needs to get is references straight!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
i seem to recall Jesus
Submitted by sometimesright on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:05pm.
i seem to recall Jesus himself whipping the moneychangers and religious hyprocrites who distorted God's commandments to make a buck, people just like mr. o'donell. distorting scripture to justify unfair taxation and ungodly liberal principles. he should be ashamed of himself.
Jesus taught that stealing is wrong, and that thieves are going
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:20pm.
...straight to Hell.
Larry is a communist, which makes him a thief, and he is going straight to Hell with the rest of the thieving commie scum.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Pompous ass
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:23pm.
Watching this idiot "preach" was hilarious. All I could think was, "What a pompous ass."
I'd be willing to bet O'Donnell has never even read the Bible. He had some unpaid interns (aka "slaves") scan the text and search the internet for passages that fit his agenda.
He's such an idiot they probably even wrote the whole piece for him as well after he told them what he wanted it to say, policy-wise.
Good job, Larry, quoting scripture out of context to make a point. But yeah, keep reminding everyone how those evil, Bible-thumpers on the right take verses out of context in arguing against the gay agenda.
Remember: A text out of context is a pretext.
'Render unto Caesar...'
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:30pm.
It's laughable when atheists try to invoke scriptures which they know absolutely nothing about. It's obvious that all Lawie-poo did was enter some search strings in a bible online topical guide. Then he slapped into his report any verses that turned up in his google search that he thought looked good without even reading the chapters or books from which he lifted them.
You can't use a couple of key word google searches for 'charity' or 'Christ' and come away from it understanding anything about charity.
For example, he totally ignored this little snippet, which was one of the ONLY instances in the scriptures that directly references taxation:
'Render unto Caesar the things that are Ceasar's, and render unto God the things that are God's.'
After this pronouncement, it is recorded that 'all who heard him marvelled at the doctrine.' I guaranted Lawie-poo would be scratching the dandruff out of his head trying to figure that one out because in HIS mind, Caesar (in modern times it would be 'Obama') would be entitled to everything, and he'd probably run away thinking 'Hey, Jesus said that everyone should give EVERYTHING to Obama!'
Larry should put down the Bible, and pick up a Websters
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:34pm.
Seriously, Larry, what is it about the meaning of the words "give" and "take" that eludes you?
ckc1227 that is a great
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:43pm.
ckc1227 that is a great statement:
Seriously, Larry, what is it about the meaning of the words "give" and "take" that eludes you?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Awesome and simple rebuttal
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:36pm.
of how O'Donnell kind of starts off, off track.
There is another scripture
Submitted by buddyc on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 2:52pm.
There is another scripture which discusses an event just before Christ is arrested. He is having his feet washed and annointed with expensive oil. Why of his disciples questions the expense and points out that the money could have been spent for the poor.
What does Christ say?
Christ said "For ye have the poor always with you and whesoever ye will ye can do them good; but me ye have not always" (Mark 14:7 American Stand Version)
Christ's ministry was to reaffirm our free agency. He said render under Caesar that which is his, referring to money. He left it up to us and he said he would judge us on HOW WE DEAL with those among us in need.
Christians also believe:
Do not preach helping the poor and not practice what you preach (James 2: 16-17)
Do not give food to someone who refuses to work (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
Hunger can be a good incentive to not be lazy (Proverbs 16:26)
God wants only
Submitted by rickbren on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:04pm.
ten percent. Why can't Barry do with the same???
Because
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:11pm.
Someone, or several someones, instilled in him a false sense of self, a false sense of ego, a false sense of greatness, so much so that he became a narcissist(is it genetic?) and that gives him a sense of entitlement too.
-Jon
10% tax rate - I approve!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:14pm.
Our economy would go wild!!! Jobs, no problem! Answer is so simple. RNC does not seem to get it either!
People can give another 10% to private charity. They are much more effective at CURING peoples problems. Not prolonging them!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
larry larry larry
Submitted by scarletandgold on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:32pm.
you poor dolt..you already sold your commie progressive soul for 30 pcs of silver,,god says in the old testiment he will hand them over to thier reprobate minds,and since messnbc is reprobate,well lawrence where does that leave you?...instead of trying to figure out why your messiah isnt the real messiah and nothing more than a chicago hack,perhaps you should talk to jesus and ask forgiveness for being such a blind,incoherrant dolt...then when ur ready and only when your ready maybe, just maybe we will accept you into a tea party..ha......................................not!
God, crippled children, raped
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 3:46pm.
God, crippled children, raped and sodomized women, all are nothing more than props to support the leftist's agenda of " what's in in for me at your expense". O'donell is nothing more than a rehash of olbermoron.
A Grande Entertainment Would Be...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 5:46pm.
Larry O'Donnell going up against any theologian worth his salt. I would love to see the "liberal" (i.e. the fantasy) perspective thoroughly discredited, ridiculed, and exposed.
Visions and Principles blog
Article should read,
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 5:48pm.
Article should read, "Self-described Socialist Lawrence O'Donnell" then continue, it's needed for context. All articles about this "journalist" should at least reflect that.
I vote for Matthew 20:1-16
Submitted by Vivaldi5 on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 8:16pm.
This parable has something that Larry the Socialist never has gotten and never will get:
If I may quote myself regarding a previous liberal trying to claim Jesus for the left: Such a flagrant example of 'social injustice' as the above could not, of course, be permitted by any true liberal. That would need a major rewrite before it could be accepted by anyone of O'Donnell's mindset.
Poor = Government?
Submitted by THBarb on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 9:26pm.
So Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor and Larry thinks we should give it to the government. Since when is the government poor (overspent yes but not poor)? It seems to me the government then passes it on to the rich through corporate welfare. Of course, some of it gets siphoned off by the overpaid bureaucrats.and politicians.
Hey O'Donnell, get your
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:48am.
Hey O'Donnell, get your religion out of my government!
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonFinally.. a leftist admits...
Submitted by Robert17 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:23am.
Finally.....a leftist admits they want a theocracy! Yes, in case you didn't know it folks, every marxist since Roosevelt has USED the bible to push their theocracy. Of course, they don't want the stuff about not fornicating, not stealing, not lying, no killing your babies, no homosexuality....but all that warm fuzzy stuff about free love and tax increases....let them have it.
Let's see. America must decide between Limbaugh and...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 2:50am.
O'Donnell. I guess we all know who won that one...20 million plus radio listeners vs a few hundred thousand or so TV viewers. Am I being too generous to O'Donnell as far as number of viewers is concerned?
Good point. O'Donnell, like
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 9:38am.
Good point. O'Donnell, like the rest of the liberal dreck at MSNBC, isn't even a miniscule blip on the broadcast radar as opposed to Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, & Beck's numbers.
O'Donnell's statements make
Submitted by ant on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:03am.
O'Donnell's statements make sense, sort of, if you think Obama is Jesus. I would trust Jesus to do what's right with any of my possessions, Obama not so much. The scripture according to Obama, O'Donnell 5:15, " ..and thou shall hand over all the fruits of thy labor so they may be used to fund the oil drilling efforts of some distant lands and to further the military might of the soldiers of Allah, so sayeth the Kenyan.".
And this clown .............
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:22am.
Calls Rush ignorant of the Bible? Nothing like making a complete fool of yourself in front of millions quoting a book he obviously has no knowledge of!! What little he read, he did not quote in the context it was written................remember Revelation where it says "add nothing to this book, nor take anything away ..."
Contortion
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 4:28pm.
I have a question for Ken Shepherd. How do you determine if somebody's interpretation of scripture is "contorted?" What is your yardstick? Is it just that his interpretation is at odds with yours, or do you have some other objective standard?
I have a question for you.
Submitted by ant on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:32pm.
I have a question for you. How did O'Donnell determine that Rush's Biblical interpretation or knowledge was insufficient? Is it just that his interpretation is at odds with O'Donnell's purely political interpretation of what most see as a spiritual guide? Or does it not matter because libs are so much smarter than everyone else and so can discuss, debate, or criticize any subject at all but "other" people need a reason to do so?
All Nonsense
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:18am.
If O'Donnell or Limbaugh were participating in this thread I would ask them the same question. I raise the issue to illustrate the absurdity of this debate. Albert Schweitzer once said, regarding the "quest" for the historical Jesus, that people tend to find in the Bible the Jesus they are predisposed to find. There are as many ways of reading the Bible as there are Christian denominations on this earth (if not more), so to use it to try to prove anything is an exercise in futility. The Bible is like a mirror in that readers will often find themselves reflected in the text. So it is no surprise that Limbaugh finds conservatism in the text, because that is what he is. It is no surprise that O'Donnell finds liberalism in the text, because that is what he is.
Hmmm...interesting....on one
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:49am.
Hmmm...interesting....on one hand you dismiss what others believe in regards to Jesus yet you accept Albert Schweitzer's premise even though it's circular reasoning.
Justin Crowe
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:22pm.
Using your criteria, Albert Schweitzer is dead. Your crux of this post seems to come from the point of the post its self. O'Donnell espouses that Jesus would "take" the money that the poor, or whoever, wants to provide for his needs.
This is wrong. Jesus would take nothing. He would give, and he encouraged others that had it, to give. Speaking of the woman, she gave to God, an offering. She did not give that money to the poor, but the church, and she was not paying a tax. The whole premise was wrong on that point. Read farther and you will find Jesus beating and kicking the "money changers" out of the temple. These were merchants and tax collectors. Members of that famous "Den of thieves".
So how do I know O'Donnell is wrong in his rant? The Bible tells me so. That's how.
If you read 2 Thessalonians 3:10, English standard version,
"For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
So I am not sure where you or O'Donnell get the idea that Jesus would take money from someone who worked for it and give it to someone that would not work. There are more examples, such as the Master who gave talents to his servants while he was gone, and after he comes home, takes the talents from one and gives them to the one who has the most. A take from the poor and give to the rich kind of thing.
Read the book dude.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Try using sound hermeneutics
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:47am.
Try using sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis and allow the Holy Spirit to guide since without the Holy Spirit there is no understanding.
Recommended reading:
How To Read The Bible For All That It Is Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stewart
New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Gordon D. Fee
Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stewart
Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge
The Hermeneutical Spiral (A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation) by Grant R. Osborne
Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
Biblical Hermeneutics by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, & Grant I. Lovejoy
Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy
Let The Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton
Now Newsbusters really isn't the place to discuss and/or debate theological issues regarding Christianity. There are plenty of forums on the internet for that. One on which I regularly participate is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) and I invite you there if you wish to discuss this topic further. Just click on "forums" to go to their discussion boards.
Holy Spirit
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:13am.
How do you know that the Holy Spirit is not working through O'Donnell and leading him to his interpretation of scripture?
Let's not play "what if"
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:30am.
Let's not play "what if" games here. Try employing sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis. If you wish to discuss/debate Christian theology I've given you a link to a good website. We could start with O'Donnell's misquoting of Scripture.
On Topic
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:50am.
I think we are on topic here. The claim was made the O'Donnell contorts scripture, and you have claimed that proper interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. So if O'Donnell is wrong in his interpretation, then by your own standard he is not guided by the Holy Spirit. My question is, how could one possibly know that, unless one knows the mind and methods of God?
Since the claim had been made that O'Donnell contorts scripture, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask by what standard that is determined.
I suspect that the only sound hermeneutic and exegesis you are going to recognize as legit are those that reach conclusions you are already predisposed to accept.
Again, you seem to not be
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:05pm.
Again, you seem to not be able to grasp the answer I've already given you: sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis, neither of which O'Donnell applied. Furthermore, the very fact that he misquoted Scripture to begin with reveals he IS contorting/distorting/twisting Scripture. It is beginning to appear that you know little to nothing concerning hermeneutics and exegesis. You are also hung up on predisposition when none exists in my case. So rather than you engaging in more ad hominem and red herring, please focus on the issue at hand.
And you are failing to comprehend my invitation to CARM for it was made if you wish to discuss theological issues more in depth.
What did O'Donnell misquote?
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:51pm.
What did O'Donnell misquote? I can't find it in the article or in the following discussion. I see the claim is being made that he took things out of context, but heck I would agree with that. Anybody who tries to apply the Bible to any modern situation takes it out of context because, as I said earlier, it was a text compiled almost 2,000 years ago in a culture vastly different from our own. Even setting that aside, the very act of reading is an act of interpretation and interpretation cannot be divorced from one's own social, ethnic, religious, and political background. Because we cannot step outside these filters anybody who interprets the Bible, you, me, O'Donnell or Limbaugh necessarily does violence to the context.
Moreover, if he did misquote something, it does not follow that he did so intentionally. It could have been an honest error, or even a difference in Bible translation (which differ vastly from Bible to Bible).
You claim that O'Donnell is failing to apply the proper hermeneutics and exegesis, so tell me, what has he done wrong?
I know enough about hermeneutics and exegesis to know that there are literally dozens of different approaches. So who gets to decide whose hermeneutics is right and whose is wrong? Why should anybody take your interpretation, or Ken Shepperd's interpretation, of the Bible more seriously than O'Donnell's?
Now you are arguing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:37pm.
Now you are arguing fallaciously by taking the stand that since the Bible is thousands of years old it doesn't apply to modern society.
Oh yes, that "you shall not murder" part is SO old-fashioned.
Secondly, just by your comments alone it is now clear you do not know much, if anything, at all concerning hermeneutics and exegesis. And frankly, it is becoming clear that you know little to nothing concerning the Bible as well.
If you wish to continue playing these "what if" games, please do so with someone else.
My invitation to come over to CARM for more indepth theological discussions/debates remains open. I think our discussion here on NB re this particular story has gone as far as it can.
Different
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:50pm.
Its not that I don't know anything about the Bible, I do. I think it is more accurate to say that what I know about the Bible is different compared to what you know about the Bible. It sounds like you are grounded in theological interpretations of the Bible and are invested in it as a text of revealed religious truth. I, on the other hand, analyze and read the Bible as I would any other ancient text, as an artifact of an ancient culture that is no longer with us. That is why I am not going to accept your invitation to CARM--I don't do theology, I do history and I do not accept the supernatural as a causal agent in history.
No, you don't do history at all, Justin.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:44pm.
You, evidently, do whatever revisionist history suits you. You publish insubstantial misrepresentations about Christians, Jews, and the Bible as a whole, and call that "history" when it's fantasy.
You've analyzed nothing, and you've actually, admittedly, disregarded what the Bible, as an "artifact," says about itself.
If you're not willing to jump in with both feet, don't test the waters in the first place.
--Mike
Fantasy?
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:44pm.
Are you seriously going to accuse me of producing fantasy, while you defend the validity of a text that has stories about angels having sex with women (Genesis 6:1-4), men building large boats to impossibly house all the world's land (at least) animals (Genesis 6-9), men who build towers to the heavens only to have their languages magically confused (Genesis 11), ten foot tall giants (1 Sam 17), talking donkeys (Numbers 22), women turned into pillars of salt (Genesis 19), bald prophets getting POed with kids who tease him about being bald and them sending angry she-bears after them (2 Kings 2), a woman who can magically get pregnant without having sex (Luke 1), a dude who can walk on water (Matthew 14) and raises others, and himself, from the dead? Tell me, what part of the brain has to be turned off to believe all that stuff? Fantasy...indeed.
Your hate, unfortunately, is palpable.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:59pm.
You infer the presence of "magic" when the Bible does not--and the Bible specifically warns against engaging in magical or otherwise occult practices.
None of the "brain has to be turned off" in order to understand that the God Who did what He did in Genesis 1 is able to accomplish everything else you mentioned.
Or would you like to categorize the ability to create everything from nothing as "magic," too? Maybe advocate random chance as the reason for existence?
--Mike
Yes, I am accusing you of
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:39am.
Yes, I am accusing you of producing fantasy. And I also accuse you of prevarication as well. That "eight years of Biblical studies" claim you made earlier is clearly nonsense as evidenced by your own posts.
In regards to your claim that
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 6:15pm.
In regards to your claim that you "do history"...it's clear you do not do it well.
And as your dismissal to my invitation to CARM...that tells me you are not as confident in your position as you let on. But that's not surprising since you've already revealed a marked lack of knowledge about the Bible, about history as it relates to the Bible, hermeneutics and exegesis. So you really would not handle CARM very well since you would be called upon to back up your claims with evidence.
comment
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:59pm.
Ahh yes, the "ancient cultures" that are "no longer with us" theme that we hear so often these days.
On the geological time scale, 2000 years is nothing, nowhere enough for any substantial macro-evolution in homo sapiens. Thus, homo sapiens today is no different than then, other than we owe our existence to those then.
Furthermore, however, on human time scales, for the vast majority of that time, Western Civilization by and large had "accepted the supernatural as a causal agent in history," and indeed, even our very dating system is based upon a "supernatural event" that is documented to have occurred in history. These "ancient texts" also served as the basis for an objective (independent of our own narcissism) morality. Therefore I always find it curious that, over the past 50 or so years, about 1/2 hour on a 24 hour clock proportionally speaking, we've somehow, suddenly, apparently "morphed" into a new species that doesn't "do" these quaint notions of morality.
As you must know, as someone who "analyzes ancient texts," the New Testament canon, by historical standards, are a highly reliable documents. This is one of the reasons why I do "do theology."
New Testament Reliablity
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:11am.
In some ways the New Testament is reliable, in others it is not. The New Testament reveals a lot about first century eastern Mediterranean cultures. The New Testament also reveals much about communities as they tried to make sense of traditions about Jesus late in the first century. But as witnesses to the lives of actual people, like Jesus, we could do a lot better. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, was written about forty years after the crucifixion (after 70 CE). We know this because Mark references the destruction of the temple, which can be dated independently of the Bible. Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, we know this because they each incorporate almost all of Mark's narrative in their own stories. John, even later. So none of these texts are contemporary with the events they describe, which is problematic for a historian. Moreover, historians give a lot of weight to independent corroborating evidence, of which there is hardly any for the life of Jesus. There are references from Nero, Josephus, and Tacitus, but they prove little beyond asserting there was an individual named Jesus in the first century who became an object of religious devotion (the Josephus passage is problematic because it appears to have been edited). But hey, there was no shortage of people named Jesus, and no shortage of people who claimed to be Messiah as well. We do not know with any certainty who actually wrote the gospels. The most ancient codices do not contain the titles like "The Gospel According to Matthew," thus suggesting that these traditions of authorship were later developments. Each of the gospel accounts appears to have been written to serve the theological perspective of the author's community. Thus, the Jesus one gets in Matthew is very Jewish, while the Jesus one gets in Luke is more like a Greco-Roman intellectual. This is a problem for the historian, because it raises questions about untangling the presentation each of the author's of the gospels wanted to portray about Jesus from the actual Jesus. So, I would disagree that the historical reliability of the New Testament is clear cut.
J C, condescending authoritarian teachers pet.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:56am.
But as witnesses to the lives of actual people, like Jesus, we could do a lot better.
OK, Give me a sample?
but wait there's more:
Moreover, historians give a lot of weight to independent corroborating evidence, of which there is hardly any for the life of Jesus.
The Bible the most manuscripted book on the planet.
The infomercial, ends with this:
Thus, the Jesus one gets in Matthew is very Jewish, while the Jesus one gets in Luke is more like a Greco-Roman intellectual. This is a problem for the historian, because it raises questions about untangling the presentation each of the author's of the gospels wanted to portray about Jesus from the actual Jesus.
Look JC you have had wayy to many Star Trek issues on the brain.
Choose this day whom you are going to follow, er some such...
Not quite the same as : Free beer tomorrow.
You Didn't Build That.
While intelligently written,
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 3:26pm.
While intelligently written, I cannot help but to disagree on several counts.
I can witness for the Bible.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:07pm.
I can witness for the Bible. It does indeed apply to modern life. It changed me! I listen via http://dailyaudiobible.com/ And I am naturally frugal, have holes in lots of my clothes before getting rid of them, still have older cars, yet give enough to charity each year to buy a new car every year. Show me your check book and I'll show you where your heart is.
"Now you are arguing fallaciously by taking the stand that since the Bible is thousands of years old it doesn't apply to modern society.
Oh yes, that "you shall not murder" part is SO old-fashioned."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Because "his math is wrong."
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:11pm.
Because "his math is wrong." Guess one would have to have actually studied some "math" to know the math is wrong! The whole Bible works together and it is much deeper than just words. They will go in one side and out the other w/o study. I go through the Bible once a year & Proverbs monthly. You learn more and more each time.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.