Rick Warren Can Stuff a Donut Up His --- (& When Will The 1st Adulterer Be Executed?)

[ihavenobias]

.

Then he really cranked into high gear with a new article at HuffPo/DailyKos: .

I'm so glad he touched on the absurdity of some of the stuff in the OT. One thing that's always pissed me off is when you point out that eating lobster and wearing clothing of mixed fibers (Cotton/synthetic blend anyone?) and inevitably a Christian says "That doesn't count, that's the OLD Testament. We follow the NEW Testament".

Oh really? So in addition to ignoring the part about gays, I guess they should also dismiss the Ten Commandments. After all, that's the OLD Testament so it's irrelevant.

[Joe the Liberal]

1. Very good point.....

People like Warren could care less about the ten commandments, they just use the bible for profit and to justify there bigoted, narrow minded views. If they don't agree with what the old testament talks about and commands they find a way around it.

[ihavenobias]

4. Agreed. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

2. I say we hold him down and check the labels on his clothes

Any poly-cotton blends and we stone him.

[ihavenobias]

8. A reasonable position.

;)

[charlie]

3. Save the first stoning for Rick

Since the wanker just let loose with -- "I have a natural tendency to have sex with every beautiful woman I see, but that doesn't make it right."

Looking at a woman with lust is adultery. Period. That's from the J-Man himself, not some decrepit Mosaic code.

[onager]

5. There's another minor problem with their...erm..."thinking..."

That whole Xian thing mentioned above, of "We follow the NEW Testament, not the Old Testament."

Huh? Jesus H. Keerist himself said, more than once, that his job was to UPHOLD the Old Testament laws, not to overturn them.

Our lib'rul Xians on DU just HATE to hear that, because so much of the OT is illiberal and generally icky. (For major Ick Factor, it's hard to beat the story of Lot and his daughters. But I digress as always.)

[charlie]

6. Haw! You know it

No chance of busting their obscurantism with that, though.

If it's not bald assertion, it's legalese. If it's not legalese, it's etymology. If it's not etymology, it's historic anachronism. And there's always the ejector seat -- "Why do think it's called faith?"

Uphold or fulfill? Take that bait and you're finished :)

It seems nothing is actually certain in the book of certitudes. You can either watch as they run the clock until you go away, or try to follow as they "let scripture interpret scripture" until the recursions make you disappear up your own asshole. They can't lose, which would be un-Biblical and against God's Will.

[trotsky]

7. Oh they wiggle out of that one too.

Jesus "fulfilled" the law - i.e., allows them to ignore the parts they don't like, and keep the parts they do.