Deuteronomy 21:18-21

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

- that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

– Man of Fire and Light

The complexities of life prevent you from following the 10 Commandments?

Which ones specifically?

ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Ok, I see what the problem is. You’re a lying, thieving murderer who worships Barack Obama like he’s a god. Good for you! You’ve broken at least half and are still walking the streets.

Proof
How is he mocking?
Laughing and suggesting the bible shouldn’t set or guide policy isn’t mocking? It is just common sense – that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

Most of Jesus’s commandments are to the individual. Do not be angry, do not hate, do not say “you fool” in anger. They are not meant to be policy, and no one has suggested that we should make them law.

We do apply several of the commandments as law though. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery. The weekend is even based on the disagreement on which day is the Sabbath.

Leviticus discusses slavery in a manner that suggests it is acceptable – treat your Jewish slaves as if they were servants.

As even secular Jew Lewis Black notes, the old Testiment God is harsher because the people were harsh. They needed to be whipped into shape. Slavery was a reality of the time. And as you read the Bible, you see that God took a wild, almost savage, people and slowly molded them into his chosen. That noted, and the reality of slavery being undeniable, this is a radical law. Treat your slaves well? Look at that from the time it was written. When that command was made law, the people surely looked at each other in disbelief. “Treat your slave like a servant? This is madness! Surely our prophet is misunderstanding..or worse…is TWISTING the word of the lord!” It really was a radical departure from how everyone else dealt with slaves. Looking backwards, it seems like a sad law that condones slavery…in reality it was a sharp break from tradition that started the Judeo-Christian move away from slavery.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

As the scripture Bob so conveniently posted shows, stoning was not for a disobedient child, but a rebellious and wicked child. When the parents take their child to be stoned, they don’t say “he gaveth me sas”, but instead list a series of transgressions, and probably have more. Far from being something to be done on a whim, the command makes it clear that the child is evil in the example, and should only be done when the child cannot be set straight.

The problem with most of the posts here, is that they assume the founding fathers thought that religion was a bad thing. When you actually read their words and understand what they had dealt with from Britain, they were harping against the very people who bastardized these religions.

Why do you think that the only two items dealing with religion in the original constitution prevent us from bastardizing religion by making laws establishing a national religion or discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs when it comes to being considered for federal employment?

You mean the election in just over 3 weeks?

This ad ought to play well with people of faith.

Proof
How is he mocking?
Laughing and suggesting the bible shouldn’t set or guide policy isn’t mocking? It is just common sense – that life and society are far more complex nowadays than two thousand years ago and we cannot apply Jesus’ laws any more than we can the ten commandments.

HG,
Why would people of faith or anyone else take a 60 second ad as gospel without checking the references themselves? If someone were to do just that then, IMO, they are truly gormless idiots who are bitterly clinging to their religion.

Leviticus discusses slavery in a manner that suggests it is acceptable – treat your Jewish slaves as if they were servants.

Deuteronomy advocates stoning your disobedient son.

The sermon on the mount wherein Jesus reveals his new laws suggests that adulterers (and that includes divorcees) should be cast out – exiled.

What is wrong with the context here?

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Since you like Supreme Court rulings, well liberal ones anyway, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice. He was our first Chief Justice of SCOTUS, was close to the Founding Fathers in time and he had no problem claiming America to be a Christian Nation, not by Law, as that would have only committed the sin of European Nations our forfathers came here to escape, but we were and mostly are today a Christian people, our Laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles and the Ten Commandments.

Thomas Jefferson “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson hated as do many Christians the harm done to the church and the world because men have perverted the truth and turned that truth into man made fables for their own purposes, but make no mistake he was NOT hostile to the Christian faith. “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.” Thomas Jefferson

It is terribly dishonest when you take a quotation out of context, not just of the passage at hand, but from the context of a man’s lifetime utterances and practices. Jefferson said, “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Jefferson was hostile towards religionists, but not towards Christ or the true Christian faith. In fact, it was he who endorsed public education in the Northwest Treaty as a means to teach the Bible and its moral precepts, which he felt were necessary to secure a free people.

Sorry Hannitized, no matter how you might choose to twist history to make Jefferson into a man hostile to the Christian faith or that would deny the Christian nature of our Constitution and people, you have to expunge The Declaration of Independence, which is our National Charter, from the history books, as that vision for America included a call for submission to Our Creator, Nature’s God, which could have only meant at those time – the Judeo-Christian God.

This is a condemnation of man twisting the words of Christ for his own gain, and is not a condemnation of faith or the Bible.

Was that not what Obama was doing? Me thinks yes.

Was that not what Obama was doing? Me thinks yes.

Clearly not. Your examples were of people criticizing clergy. Obama is lambasting the bible itself. What your examples were doing is equivalent to the conservative argument against Roe vs Wade. It’s not in the constitution, and the case law is bad, but since it’s wrapped up in “emanations of penumbras” it must be constitutional! Epic fail. Likewize, just because a preacher says to do something, doesn’t mean it’s biblical.

He was mocking using the bible as a foundation for laws, then picking things out of the bible to show he disagrees with the idea. “How about we use Leviticus where they encourage you to stone your child?” That’s mockery, both of the bible and of the religious. It’s deceptive because #1 no one is advocating making the bible law and #2 he’s trying to make the passage sound worse than it is to show the eeeeevils of the bible.

The theocracy line is old, tired, and stupid. And mocking the bible will not win new voters.

A slightly smarter, wiser or less condescending person could have made whatever points he was trying to make without insulting the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.

Exactly. Obama’s condescending tone is telling. There is nothing Christian about Obama’s church and his black liberation theological nonsense.

Remember Farakhan says Obama is the OT messiah. What a joke.

Obama’s the closest this I’ve seen to the “ANTICHRIST” in a long, long time..

Kenny

Most of Jesus’s commandments are to the individual. Do not be angry, do not hate, do not say “you fool” in anger. They are not meant to be policy, and no one has suggested that we should make them law.

In fact Jesus says in the sermon on the mount that he is not supplanting the Jewish laws but fulfilling them – making them complete.
HG

Thus, care must be taken when comparing America and the OT theocracy in Israel or that theocracy yet future.

The context of Obamas response was on whether the bible should set or guide policy. Jesus stated that the Jewish laws still stand, so they must be considered when using the bible to decide policy. If the OT were not relevant, then it would not be included in the bible, now would it?

Bullwinkle, I’m getting divorced and I sometimes I look at women lustfully, therefore I will be an adulterer the rest of my days (as will my wife) and according to Jesus, we should be excised from the body politic.
I swear, take your lord’s name in vain, insult people (my friends mostly) and will happily work and avoid worship on the Christian sabbath.

As far as Obama is concerned, I couldn’t give two hoots about him, nor for that matter, who wins your election. All the candidates seem to be vacuous and insincere, as far as I can tell.

Tommy wrote the classic line to the Baptist in Danbury

He was defending himself against the charge he wanted to establish a national Christian denomination, the passge you included was only his promise not to do that, that is all and to make any more out of it as that damnable KKK member Hugo Black did is to foster a monstrous lie.

As usual you are twisting the plain words of history to force them to support your anti-Christian hatred.

Man of Fire and Light, Sorry you are going through a divorce. That is hard. I hope really good things for you!

Clearly not. Your examples were of people criticizing clergy. Obama is lambasting the bible itself.

That is not true, you merely focused on those that criticized the clergy and religion, and ignored those comment’s that criticized the bible.

Here’s Thomas Paine
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible).”

Thomas Jefferson
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth.”

Zsa Zsa, thank you sweetheart.

Neiman, are you right or is Kenny?

If neither of you engage in sexual relations with others, you are not guilty of adultery

Jesus says in the SotM that looking at women with lust makes one guilty of adultery – didn’t he?

Yes, you are doing wrong by divorcing, unless there was valid reason.

My reasons for divorce are none of your business, nor of your god. The reasons are perfectly valid.

When Jesus died and rose again He introduced the New Covenant of Grace, wherein the O.T. Law was no longer the master over us that believed

Does that mean that anything Jesus said before he died is null and void?

Jesus swore, and insulted people. He also said that Sabbath was made for the man and not man for the Sabbath. But, hey, if you want to flaunt your disrespect for God, feel free.

If this is the case, then he was a bit of a hypocrite for saying this – “If you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘you fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:22)

I flaunt no disrespect for YOUR god, because I do not believe in him/her/it/whatever. I believe it is everyone’s right to believe what they wish to and no-one’s right to judge them based on their own beliefs. I respect that you have a strong faith in the teachings of the bible and that you live your life in a way that makes you happy. Can you extend the same courtesy?

a[n] [strike]cynical and manipulative[/strike] honest attack on Barack Obama’s [strike]reading[/strike] ignorance of the Bible.

He did not make pretense at being a Christian,

That is also irrelevant to the argument made by Nieman. His point is what our founding fathers thought of God and how it related to the declaration of independence.

This is all about what our Founding Fathers thought of God, Religion and the Bible. It has nothing to do with their personal affiliation. Therefore, Paine is relevant as all the others, and you are not.

Funny, our Founding Father’s in private, in the Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Treaty and other documents believed that “”God who gave us life gave us liberty. – Nieman

My reasons for divorce are none of your business, nor of your god. The reasons are perfectly valid.

Shrug, I personally don’t care about your divorce. But yes, they are the business of the supreme being who created everything, including marriage. Strike one.

I flaunt no disrespect for YOUR god, because I do not believe in him/her/it/whatever. I believe it is everyone’s right to believe what they wish to and no-one’s right to judge them based on their own beliefs. I respect that you have a strong faith in the teachings of the bible and that you live your life in a way that makes you happy. Can you extend the same courtesy?

There was no respect extended. You express disbelief that anyone could cluelessly want to impose the bible. You have polite scorn, yet it is scorn nonetheless. You don’t understand the Bible, or our beliefs, yet you wish to comment on them and cast aspersions. “This is the same bible that condones slavery and allows you to kill disobedient children?” Even after you have been educated, you mindlessly repeat your slurs.

Furthermore, why should I extend ANY courtesy, based on your response that “no one should be judged by what they believe”? That’s the height of stupidity. What if I believe that non-believers aren’t human and should die? I can’t be judged on that? What if I believe blacks should be slaves again? I mean, it’s a belief right? If you are too open minded, everything inside just falls out.

One of us is right. If it’s you, no biggie. You die and turn into nothingness. If I’m right, you have to answer for your sins to a God that will not accept “I don’t accept your authority in my life” as a valid excuse. (Oh, and as a side note, actually your divorce is my business if we live in the same state. As marriage is a contract and a legal issue, and the courts are acting on the people’s behalf…technically, your divorce is the state…aka the people’s…business. Just an FYI.)

No matter what Jefferson’s views on religion were, no amount of diversion will give cover to the contempt that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, shows to large portions of what most Christians refer to as “Holy Scripture”.

I’d like to see the whole speech, not just what was obviously cut up – like the Palin Gibson interview – before I make a judgement call. I believe that Obama believes more in Jeremiah Wright and Looney Lewis’ view of religion, but this tape is so cut up I won’t believe it.

Mofal,

The context is key. The OT tells the history of Israel from its very beginning. The laws in the OT were given by God Himself to the nation He established. In other words, Israel’s ‘constitution’, so to speak, was authored and enforced by God Himself. The OT also looks forward to a day when God Himself will visually reign as King in Israel in the person of the Messiah. This Messiah is none other than Jesus Christ who taught of the swift judgment which will be present once He assumes his role on this earth as King in Israel.

Thus, care must be taken when comparing America and the OT theocracy in Israel or that theocracy yet future.

That is also irrelevant to the argument made by Nieman. (sic)

Neiman didn’t start this discussion, I did. You in the wrong pew, bubba? Or did you miss the point that this thread is about Obama (a supposed Christian) mocking the Bible, not generic Founding Fathers doing so. (BTW, A handy rule of thumb is to at least read the headline before you comment!)
You are irrelevant with a capital “I”. The drunken squirrel was closer to being on topic than you are! Feel free to start your own thread where you can make any argument you want with whatever lax standards of evidence you care to choose.

It ain’t necessarily so
It ain’t necessarily so
De things dat yo’ liable to read in de Bible
It ain’t necessarily so