Given the importance of the Bible to Republican political theology, I thought I would take a look at some of the contradictions contained within this supposedly empirical, scientific, and infallible book. The Bible is full of contradictions great and small. These contradictions are disturbing because Irenaeus assured us in the second century that “the scriptures are perfect because they were uttered by the Word of God and his Spirit.” Now granted, the Bible as we know it had not been assembled yet in Irenaeus’ time but fundamentalists continue to assure us that his guarantee remains valid.
Fundamentalists cannot admit to this lack of perfection; it is a violation of their faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But the contradictions are there for all to see. Some will use the excuse that only a believer can understand the Bible. Intellectuals, they say, are the problem, including especially intellectual pastors ( listened to this discussion in a local restaurant a week or so back). Others will now argue them away by asserting that “These are not contradictions in substance.”[1] Of course, this is an entirely inaccurate assertion. Whether or not people is saved by Works or Faith seems like a substantive issue, doesn’t it? What is at stake is an eternity in heaven or hell, after all. And it dodges the issue: perfect means without contradictions.
This is the book they want us to live by, they want to legislate into the law of the land. How, exactly, is anyone to do that given it is such a mish-mash of contradictions?
The Creation Story
The Book of Genesis presents us with two mutually incompatible creation stories. From 1-2.4 we have the standard 7-day model with which we are all familiar. But from 2.4 on we are given an entirely new scenario, one which sees the creation of Adam and Eve (remember, they were already presumably created along with all the other men and women in 1.26, where he enjoined them to “be fruitful and multiply.” Of course, this turns out to be very bad advice indeed, since this is the sort of nonsense that gets them in trouble in the second story. As Robin Lane Fox observes, the second story “flatly contradicts the first.” In the second story, man precedes vegetation but in the first, vegetation appears at 1.12 while man only arrives at 1.26 – a neat trick. Remember too that the Garden of Eden exists only in the second story; it is not present in the first, an interesting omission. Obviously, the two stories date from different times, but both before 400 BCE, after which date a third writer combined them into a single account. “Probably,” as Lane Fox concludes, “the two stories had become too well known for either to be excluded.”[2]
Just as someday, should Sarah Palin win in 2012, we will have two stories of Paul Revere, one where he warns the British and another where he warns the Patriots. Some future generation will be left to sort out that particular contradiction.
Will the Real Ten Commandments Please Stand Up?
Even the famous 10 Commandments so popular with Right Wing Christianity in America are not so cut and dried as people seem to think (including those self-same Right-wingers. The 10 Commandments are given twice, once at Exodus 20 and again at Deuteronomy 5. If that isn’t confusing enough, we are also presented with three mutually incompatible sets of laws (Exodus 20-23; Leviticus 11-27; Deuteronomy 12-26). In any case, as Lane Fox rightly observes, “There are not ten, and they are patently not original commands which were given to Moses by the mountain god of Sinai.” Though they may originally date from around the 10th century BCE, “the versions which we now read have been enlarged and varied and their final form may be as late as c. 550 BC.”[3]
So they’re putting revised Ten Commandments on our public buildings?
Jesus’ Birth
This is a big one. We are given two different events by which to date the birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, they are mutually contradictory; both cannot be true. The first is the account in Luke. Luke tells us that the Annunciation (the foretelling of Jesus’ birth) takes place in the reign of Herod (1:5), who died in 4 BCE (some scholars place his death a year earlier). Her pregnancy must have been of unusually long duration though because at 2:1 Luke tells us that Jesus was born when Quirinius took his census, which was 6 CE. Therefore Jesus was in Mary’s womb for a good 10 years, possibly 11! Matthew (2:1) tells us that Jesus was born “during the time of King Herod” and there is no mention of Quirinus. The simple problem is that the taxation could not have taken place during Herod’s reign because under Herod they were Jewish, not Roman citizens. If the taxation took place after Herod, a problem still remains, because Galilee was not part of the Roman province over which Quirinus oversaw the census. No Galilean would have been compelled to leave an independent Jewish tetrarchy in order to be taxed in an adjoining Roman province.[4] In the end, the very fact of these inconsistencies is testament to early Christian ignorance of the details of Jesus’ birth and of the relatively late date of their written accounts.
Appearance of the Risen Jesus
In 1 Cor 15:1f Paul gives his version of events. But in Luke 24:13 (and remember, Luke was an educated Greek speaker) Luke “shows a close similarity to the report of the appearance of the deified Romulus, Dion. Hal. II.63.3f, and Livy I.16.5f
The Last Supper
Mark 14:12 says that the Last Supper was the Passover Meal, or Pesher, but John 19:14 states that the meal occurred the day before Passover.
The Origins of the Law
In Exodus we learn that God gave the law to the Jews directly. But Paul in Galatians (3:19) asserts that the law came not from God but through angelic intermediaries. This is obviously another substantive contradiction, since Paul’s argument was designed to show that the Law was unimportant. If, however, Paul was wrong and the Law was handed down to the Jews directly from the hand of YHWH, then it would seem inopportune, not to say unwise (to say the least) to disregard it. After all, according to Paul then, the 10 Commandments really aren’t all that important, are they?
The Parousia
In 1 Thessalonians Paul says that Jesus is coming back right away. His return is expected at any time. But in 2 Thessalonians this has changed to “other things have to happen first” (2:1-12). What happened? Obviously, the Parousia didn’t.
In 1 Corinthians and also in 2 Corinthians, Paul argues that the resurrection has not already occurred (cf. Rom 6:1-6) but in Ephesians, a letter not considered by scholars to be genuine, Paul argues that they have already experienced the spiritual resurrection and are already “sitting in the heavenly places.” This poses no problems for liberal scholars willing to admit one letter is a forgery, but how do apologists reconcile the fact that one must be wrong if both texts represent the inerrant word of God?
And if it’s already occurred, why are people sweating Jesus’ return? Isn’t a strong pro-Israel policy kinda unnecessary then?
Paul’s Theology and Means of Salvation
In Acts 13:16-42 Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. But in Paul’s epistles what we learn is that Christ’s death provides atonement for sins (a sacrifice made for the sins of others – “this atonement purchased a right standing before God” But forgiveness is being let off the hook altogether for something you’ve done, no requirements of payment. In Acts, sacrifice is required for forgiveness of the debt because this is Luke’s explanation for why Jesus had to die. Christ’s death here is an occasion for repentance. This is not the same as atonement, and this is an important theological problem indeed, not just a matter of peripheral details.[5] This is yet another of those substantive contradictions that are not supposed to exist, and a rather important one at that.
Paul’s Devotion to Jewish Law
Acts 21-22 and 28:17 shows that charges against Paul are trumped up. Paul has done nothing contrary to the Law. But in 1 Cor 9:21 and 2:11-14 we see that Paul could live like Jew or a Gentile yet attacks Cephas for not living like a Gentile. In Gal 2:21 Paul tells us that if the Law is necessary, then Jesus died in vain. So why today are fundamentalists pushing the law down our throats? Was Paul, who supposedly talked to Jesus, a liar? Or did his source (Jesus) not know what he was talking about?
Faith versus Works
In Galatians Paul writes “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is (any longer) in force, but rather Faith working by love. You were running well. Who stopped you, that you did not obey the Truth?” (5:6-7). In Galatians he speaks of his freedom from the Law and of Law as slavery (2:4-5). In Corinthians he writes again about his freedom from the Law, comparing himself to a runner in a race (1 Cor 9:24-26). In 1 Cor 8:7-11 and 9:22 he characterizes those who obey the Law as “weak”. Yet James says, “For whoever shall keep the whole Law, but stumbles on one (small point), shall be guilty (of breaking) it all (2:10). And most tellingly: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder’ (James 2.14-19) and at 2:26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
Both cannot be right, both Paul and James. Who is to be believed? Or will it be recognized finally that these are two entirely different theologies, Pauline Christianity and Judaism? This is the “Mother of All” substantive contradictions and for very obvious reasons. How is a Christian to get to heaven? Of necessity one of them must be wrong, and that doorway, if chosen, leads not to heaven but to eternal damnation.
[1] Kreeft & Tacelli (1994), 215, who fail to mention any of these substantive errors in their meager collection.
[2] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (NY: Vintage Books, 1991), 15-23.
[4] Herod’s death is dated by an eclipse of the moon dated to 12-13 March, 4 BCE. The date of the census is known from Josephus, Ant. 18.1 and from Cassius Dio (find citation), and there is nowhere any record of an “empire-wide” census such as that described in Luke. The Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated in Christianity on March 25.
[5] Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, 143-144.
The Biblical Contradictions of Republican Theology was written by Hrafnkell Haraldsson for PoliticusUSA.
22 Responses to The Biblical Contradictions of Republican Theology
MsJoanne
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 8:38 am
The only scripture the GOP cares about has lots of zeros on it and says In God We Trust.
I don’t recall if you reported this or not, but here’s your GOP godliness: Eric Cantor is shorting US Treasury bonds. Talk about a conflict of interest. What a freaking crook! The damn lot of them.
And where in the Bible does it condemn abortion? Nowhere! But have no fear, I’m sure the GOP/TeaParty have sent the Bible to the Texas Board of Education for a revision of the scriptures:
With all these so-called “Christians” leading the battle against abortion and invoking the word of God or Jesus as justification for their battle, where exactly in the Bible does it condemn abortion? {{crickets}}
In actuality, if you want to take the nearly 2000 year old Bible literally as God speaking, it seems God actually approves of inducing a miscarriage/abortion. Take a look at Numbers 5:11-31. God says that if a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, she is to be given “bitter waters” to induce a miscarriage:
5:27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the (bitter) water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration (curse or swearword) among her people.
What do you think? 00
NamelessGenXer
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Meh… the antiquated book of allegorical fables has zero relevance in my circa 2011 life. Freedom OF Religion means Freedom FROM Religion and they will never inflict this ridiculous man-made nonsense on me.
What do you think? 00
David_Ashton
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I’m preparing an answer to this article, so I won’t begin my argument just yet.
One mistake you do have is to have such contempt for belief. I can understand your disgust at the Republican’s terpitude and self-righteousness, but don’t smear the bible with your contempt for their ignorance and deceit.
What do you think? 00
Lageorgia
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I am a very strong Christian and a very strong liberal. I also have a Phd in Enlightenment history and have researched the Bible for years. Most of what is taught as theBible has been missed interpreted for years. The Bible code has just recently been broken and it appears that what we call the Bible has been changed by mistake as well as by political design from the very beginnings of it being written.
What do you think? 00
TheSheriff
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I’m sorry, sir, but your verbiage belays your claims. How can you have a Ph.D. in Enlightenment History, when you so badly misspelled misinterpreted? You would imagine that word in particular would be one you’d be extremely familiar with. Now going on about the “Bible Code” further denotes that you follow inane theories. The bible was written by many people. As shown in this very article it points to very contradicting information. You’re trying to tell me that god touched these writers so he could make a puzzle for man to figure out? You’ve been reading to many mysteries.
What do you think? 00
WakeUpHadEnough
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Contempt? No. Pity? Yes. Pity that such numbers of seemingly intelligent people put any faith at all in such nonsense. And the bible does a great job of smearing itself, thank you. Not only HUGE contradictions, but murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, incest,….yes, pity is the best way to describe my feeling for these folks.
What do you think? 00
lalamen
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
I wish there were a LIKE button – cuz WakeUp, I am in complete agreement with you.
What do you think? 00
Daniel
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
If I can point out only one error in your reasoning here, then your entire article can be questioned.
You point out that the Last Supper took place the day (evening) before Passover, but in the Jewish culture, the day begins at sundown the day before as in the Sabbath. Jews will begin the Sabbath on Friday night at sundown and end it at sunset on Saturday.
There are VERY simple explanations to many of the “contradictions” you’ve brought up. You don’t even need to be a believer to understand them.
To you and anyone else wondering about these things, please pick up the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Here: www.firstload.net/?ir=1...
This guy was an agnostic when he decided to prepare a paper that would examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However, he converted to Christianity, after, as he says, he found evidence for it, not against it.
What do you think? 00
Anon Guest
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
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
(Gershwins Porgy and Bess)
What do you think? 00
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
It would be nice if liberals stopped claiming that religion, especially Christianity, was strictly a GOP/conservative thing. There’s many liberals who are religious and devout in their faith. This includes the Christian faith.
If you want to debate the idea of the Bible as being factual, fine. But stop pretending that conservatives have a monopoly on faith. They don’t.
What do you think? 00
Sarah Jones
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Darn those churches that have signs saying to vote Republican! Don’t look over there…..
What do you think? 00
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
So because of that there can’t be any liberals who are devout Christians?
What do you think? 00
Sarah Jones
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Did anyone here say that? No. In fact, if you read the articles we have, specifically a series on Sunday, we address that very issue and are careful to delineate between mainline Christians and the fundamentalists Dominionists. But no one can deny the reality that the Republican Party has co-opted Christianity quite successfully. There are people fighting back against that, but it’s been this way for 40 years. Their candidates and the voting bloc that goes with them speak to that fact loudly and undeniably.
It isn’t the liberals who claim the GOP has a lock on faith. It’s the Republican candidates who do that.
What do you think? 00
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I’m aware of this, and I like those articles very much.
I was addressing this one, however.
What do you think? 00
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Jimmy, the liberals are not using religion to forward an agenda. Fundamentalist conservatives are.
What do you think? 00
debracaballero
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
There can only be one truth and the truth can never be at disagreement with its self.
What do you think? 00
ProChoiceGrandma
Jul. 1st, 2011 at 11:06 am
Comment by Obi-jonKenobi:
I found the following FABULOUS comment by Obi-jonKenobi on the MotherJones article about Marcus Bachmann saying gays are barbarians: www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/...
This comment is a keeper and should be shared everywhere!
Comment by Obi-jonKenobi:
Here’s an appropriate response to this kind of nonsense found in a letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger from James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia. In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. This is Dr. Kauffman’s open letter to Dr. Laura posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God, if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football, if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special EducationUniversity of Virginia
What do you think? 00
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am
LOL!
What do you think? 00
chefbob50
Jul. 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 am
I’ve always wondered if Adam and Eve were the first people and then they had Cain and Abel who were married where did the wives come from and by extension the rest of us???
What do you think? 00
Janice Adams
Jul. 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Cain and Abel married their sisters they lived in the land of Nod and a wink, later shortened to Nod. They don’t count women in the bible so after talking about Eve they didn’t mention anything but the male children. There were only two apparently, Cain and Abel and then Cain killed Abel because God hates vegetables and Cain got mad about that. So then it was up to Cain to father all the rest of the world.
What do you think? 00
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
We will send a confirmation email after submitting.
MsJoanne
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 8:38 am
The only scripture the GOP cares about has lots of zeros on it and says In God We Trust.
I don’t recall if you reported this or not, but here’s your GOP godliness: Eric Cantor is shorting US Treasury bonds. Talk about a conflict of interest. What a freaking crook! The damn lot of them.
mobile.salon.com/news/pol...
ProChoiceGrandma
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 10:09 am
And where in the Bible does it condemn abortion? Nowhere! But have no fear, I’m sure the GOP/TeaParty have sent the Bible to the Texas Board of Education for a revision of the scriptures:
politicalgates.blogspot.c...
With all these so-called “Christians” leading the battle against abortion and invoking the word of God or Jesus as justification for their battle, where exactly in the Bible does it condemn abortion? {{crickets}}
In actuality, if you want to take the nearly 2000 year old Bible literally as God speaking, it seems God actually approves of inducing a miscarriage/abortion. Take a look at Numbers 5:11-31. God says that if a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, she is to be given “bitter waters” to induce a miscarriage:
5:27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the (bitter) water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration (curse or swearword) among her people.
NamelessGenXer
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Meh… the antiquated book of allegorical fables has zero relevance in my circa 2011 life. Freedom OF Religion means Freedom FROM Religion and they will never inflict this ridiculous man-made nonsense on me.
David_Ashton
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I’m preparing an answer to this article, so I won’t begin my argument just yet.
One mistake you do have is to have such contempt for belief. I can understand your disgust at the Republican’s terpitude and self-righteousness, but don’t smear the bible with your contempt for their ignorance and deceit.
Lageorgia
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I am a very strong Christian and a very strong liberal. I also have a Phd in Enlightenment history and have researched the Bible for years. Most of what is taught as theBible has been missed interpreted for years. The Bible code has just recently been broken and it appears that what we call the Bible has been changed by mistake as well as by political design from the very beginnings of it being written.
TheSheriff
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I’m sorry, sir, but your verbiage belays your claims. How can you have a Ph.D. in Enlightenment History, when you so badly misspelled misinterpreted? You would imagine that word in particular would be one you’d be extremely familiar with. Now going on about the “Bible Code” further denotes that you follow inane theories. The bible was written by many people. As shown in this very article it points to very contradicting information. You’re trying to tell me that god touched these writers so he could make a puzzle for man to figure out? You’ve been reading to many mysteries.
WakeUpHadEnough
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Contempt? No. Pity? Yes. Pity that such numbers of seemingly intelligent people put any faith at all in such nonsense. And the bible does a great job of smearing itself, thank you. Not only HUGE contradictions, but murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, incest,….yes, pity is the best way to describe my feeling for these folks.
lalamen
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
I wish there were a LIKE button – cuz WakeUp, I am in complete agreement with you.
Daniel
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
If I can point out only one error in your reasoning here, then your entire article can be questioned.
You point out that the Last Supper took place the day (evening) before Passover, but in the Jewish culture, the day begins at sundown the day before as in the Sabbath. Jews will begin the Sabbath on Friday night at sundown and end it at sunset on Saturday.
There are VERY simple explanations to many of the “contradictions” you’ve brought up. You don’t even need to be a believer to understand them.
To you and anyone else wondering about these things, please pick up the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Here: www.firstload.net/?ir=1...
or here: www.amazon.com/Evidence-D...
or watch this: www.resourcesforchristian...
This guy was an agnostic when he decided to prepare a paper that would examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However, he converted to Christianity, after, as he says, he found evidence for it, not against it.
Anon Guest
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
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
(Gershwins Porgy and Bess)
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
It would be nice if liberals stopped claiming that religion, especially Christianity, was strictly a GOP/conservative thing. There’s many liberals who are religious and devout in their faith. This includes the Christian faith.
If you want to debate the idea of the Bible as being factual, fine. But stop pretending that conservatives have a monopoly on faith. They don’t.
Sarah Jones
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Darn those churches that have signs saying to vote Republican! Don’t look over there…..
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
So because of that there can’t be any liberals who are devout Christians?
Sarah Jones
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Did anyone here say that? No. In fact, if you read the articles we have, specifically a series on Sunday, we address that very issue and are careful to delineate between mainline Christians and the fundamentalists Dominionists. But no one can deny the reality that the Republican Party has co-opted Christianity quite successfully. There are people fighting back against that, but it’s been this way for 40 years. Their candidates and the voting bloc that goes with them speak to that fact loudly and undeniably.
It isn’t the liberals who claim the GOP has a lock on faith. It’s the Republican candidates who do that.
StJimmy
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I’m aware of this, and I like those articles very much.
I was addressing this one, however.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Jimmy, the liberals are not using religion to forward an agenda. Fundamentalist conservatives are.
debracaballero
Jun. 30th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
There can only be one truth and the truth can never be at disagreement with its self.
ProChoiceGrandma
Jul. 1st, 2011 at 11:06 am
Comment by Obi-jonKenobi:
I found the following FABULOUS comment by Obi-jonKenobi on the MotherJones article about Marcus Bachmann saying gays are barbarians:
www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/...
This comment is a keeper and should be shared everywhere!
Comment by Obi-jonKenobi:
Here’s an appropriate response to this kind of nonsense found in a letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger from James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia. In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. This is Dr. Kauffman’s open letter to Dr. Laura posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God, if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football, if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special EducationUniversity of Virginia
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am
LOL!
chefbob50
Jul. 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 am
I’ve always wondered if Adam and Eve were the first people and then they had Cain and Abel who were married where did the wives come from and by extension the rest of us???
Janice Adams
Jul. 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Cain and Abel married their sisters they lived in the land of Nod and a wink, later shortened to Nod. They don’t count women in the bible so after talking about Eve they didn’t mention anything but the male children. There were only two apparently, Cain and Abel and then Cain killed Abel because God hates vegetables and Cain got mad about that. So then it was up to Cain to father all the rest of the world.