Like it? Share it!

Banner


Reason Rally Logo
 

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Saddlebackpedal (Or: Rick Warren Probably Isn't a Really Great Guy) PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Sean Sturgeon   
Thursday, 24 December 2009 00:43

There’s an old axiom stating that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than it is to speak and remove all doubt. If you take the above statement and combine it with the ugly truth that some things are not said better late than never, you just get just the tiniest taste of the epic tub of foul-smelling verbal unguent slathered onto us by Rick Warren and the Ugandan Pastor of Death.

rickwarren2Rick Warren is the ambulatory sack of preacher parts who leads the awesome and powerful Saddleback Megachurch. (If I were going to write post apocalyptic fiction, my protagonist would be named Saddleback Megachurch…)

In his capacity as the Megapastor, Warren has maintained his fundamentalist theology while cultivating a more moderate image to the public at large. Eschewing the “Haggard Method” of being a self-loathing gay man who screams at biologists and mashes crystal meth under his tongue, Warren has opted to do things like grow a goatee and wear short sleeves — and, though I could be wrong, I think he was the original bass player for Def Leppard.

Warren has become a powerhouse among Evangelicals with some pretty impressive crossover among moderates. (Also, as a Megapastor, he and four of his colleagues can unite to form Voltron.) Warren was so popular that he was selected by Barack Obama to offer an inaugural prayer. The choice caused an outcry among the members of the progressive left, who would have paced themselves had they known what was to come.

The real trouble starts in Uganda. In October of this year, the Ugandan Parliament plopped out a bill that would criminalize the support of homosexuals as well as make some homosexual acts capital crimes.

One of the bills most vocal supporters has been Pastor Martin Ssempa, the charismatic, condom-burning, homosexual-outing, rabidly misanthropic Ugandan Jesus-slinger. Depending on who you listen to re: Ssempa’s connection with Warren, Ssempa was either just some guy at a Saddleback AIDS conference or an honorary member of the Warren family. (Click that last link to read about Rick Warren's wife, Kay, referring to Ssempa as her brother while "her voice trembled with emotion" and "tears ran down her cheeks.") This being the Year of Our Lord, 2009, in which it is necessary for famous people to grovel after our forgiveness every time anyone they’ve ever met makes a bad decision, a lot of us hoped for an apology, or even a condemnation of the bill, from Pastor Rick. Since the bill was so obviously vile — Uganda is explicitly endorsing killing homosexuals and AIDS sufferers — you’d think it wouldn’t be a problem.

But it was a problem. Mega Rick courageously noted that Ssempa did officially not represent him or his church and that he preferred not to “take sides.” This is the kind of bet-hedging that really makes my dreams take flight.

The message is consistent with the finer traditions of Christian ministry, because if there is anything we all know about the stories of Jesus, it was that he really just kept to himself. The Nazarene wood worker was known far and wide for chatting quietly with his twelve friends and never taking sides.

Jesus was Mister Impartial.

My favorite bible story is the Parable of the Roman Tax Collector Whom Jesus Decided not to Confront Lest He Cause a Scene. Paul’s letter to the Galatians about minding their own damned business was pretty great, too:

“Blessed is he who comes up with his own ideas and then contemplates them privately while not nosing into the affairs of his neighbors or pestering them about whether or not they eat pork.”

But wait! Some keen members of the media have pointed out that apparently Rick Warren does take sides, such as when he supported the measure to repeal same-sex rights in California and compared homosexuals to polygamists and child molesters. But when it came to bills advocating the murder of fagalas, it took Pastor Rick a full two weeks to publish a full and detailed repudiation. Slow, sure. But the delivery was masterful. Rarely has bullet-point damage control been so preachy and homespun. In the face of such a virtuosic response, most folks decided to let the matter drop. And in response to that, I must ask them if they have been exposed to nuclear waste, or are the product of a marriage between siblings.

Let’s be clear on something: It took Rick Warren’s brain nearly two weeks to decide that an actual bill being proposed by an actual country that would kill actual people for being actually gay was worthy of public disapproval. He had to think this over for eleven days — in case it was the wrong thing to say.

While he had his feet up listening to "Let Jesus Take the Wheel" on his Megapastor iPod, the jury was still out — he might have been willing to let it slide!

Let’s just say that if I’m ever choking on a chicken nugget and need the Heimlich, I really don't want Rick Warren to be my only hope. If this Ugandan thing is any indication, I’d die three times over while he decided if bear-hugging me might be misinterpreted as him having caught “the gay”

In his full and final rebuke, Pastor Rick wrote:

"Finally, the freedom to make moral choices, and our right to free expression are gifts endowed by God."

The freedom to not make them, and then make them too late, must come from his PR firm.

Trackback(0)
Comments (55)Add Comment
...
written by Willy K, December 24, 2009
Maybe Rick the Mega-Prick meant to say:

"Finally, the Lord hath given me the right to make moral choices for all of Humanity. Praise the Lord!"

This might fit his big fat ego. To Hell with Humility, eh Rick?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by CasaRojo, December 24, 2009
"He had to think this over for eleven days — in case it was the wrong thing to say."

I'm sure he had to pray about it and was just waiting to hear back from god.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
What a tool!
written by Human Person Jr, December 24, 2009
Rick, we wish we'd hardly known ya.

I do, however, recognize your Biblical authority as the pastor of your "flock." Let us all turn to, in the Good Book, II Confabulations, verses 9-12: "And he toiled not in the vineyard, nor labored he in the fields, and though he knew not his ass from a HOLE IN THE EARTH, yea, verily; And though he couldst not find his own ass with BOTH HANDS, praise Whatever, he prospered might-eh-lehhhhh, for he could talk that shite-tuh. Amen."

That about describes you, huh, Brother Rick?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
...
written by MadScientist, December 24, 2009
So what's so unusual about promoting murder on the one hand and claiming to be peace-loving and brotherly on the other? After all, that's one of the first stories in the bible - the book that Warren no doubt claims to be a fountain of moral instruction.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Syllables
written by GusGus, December 24, 2009
Off subject, but did you ever notice that evangelicals think that "god" has three syllables?
.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by incredulous, December 24, 2009
I sympathize - I prefer to have weeks to ponder the blindingly obvious as well.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
JREF needs no comment moderation...
written by Human Person Jr, December 24, 2009
No one here takes you seriously. Hence, yout total bullshit doesn't affect anyone here. Are you aware that disk space is getting cheaper every day? It costs this site literally nothing to host your immature jabs. You're not causing anyone here any problems whatever. You're merely exhibiting your own misery.

James Randi isn't finished. In fact, he will never be finished. His good works will live on even after his death. I have two grandsons who are dedicated fans, and more people are learning to appreciate James Randi every day. Trust me, a thousand like you wouldn't equal one James Randi. His accomplishments are many, his circle of friends and admirers amazingly wide.

Good luck to you, whoever you are. Try to improve yourself and expand your horizons. You are wasting time here, time better spent on study and developing critical thinking skills.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
@Mad Scientist
written by popsaw, December 24, 2009
So what's so unusual about promoting murder on the one hand and claiming to be peace-loving and brotherly on the other? After all, that's one of the first stories in the bible - the book that Warren no doubt claims to be a fountain of moral instruction.
Could you show where the bible promotes murder because Exodus 20:13 states "You must not murder"(sixth commandment)
There is also one about bearing false witness or something!
smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -10
...
written by KingMerv00, December 24, 2009
Murder in the Bible: "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.' (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
...
written by KingMerv00, December 24, 2009
Oh and this too: "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by KingMerv00, December 24, 2009
Don't forget this: "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by popsaw, December 24, 2009
Murder is unlawful killing. The example you cite is one of lawful execution, under Mosaic law, like state execution in some lands including the USA, unpalatable to some but not murder. Furthermore, the law you cite was unique to the Israelites who in he bible had a 'covenant arrangement' with God, who exacted exclusive devotion from the nation and moral uprightness in return for his special favour and protection.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
@popsaw
written by Nonchev, December 25, 2009
Lawful execution is state-sanctioned murder. And just because it is allowed to happen does not mean it's not wrong. A more reasonable criteria for what is murder is "killing someone that is not an immediate threat to your or anyone's life".

In any case, lawful or not, it is far from a bright example of "promoting peace-loving and brotherhood". That is what the other posters said - preaching love & shit on one hand, then killing people with the other.

In any case a better example is
"And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel. And David saved neither man nor woman alive" -- 1 Samuel 27:8-9

Can you think of any possible moral justification for genocide? Me neither.

And don't get me started on the whole "everybody was doing it back then". So? It is still barbaric.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by popsaw, December 25, 2009
Nonchev
I merely explained why the cited example does not fit the definition of murder. I am not interested in changing peoples views, just correcting misinformation about the bibles words. On a critical thinking website, I think it is important that passages etc are not misquoted or taken out of context.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
written by Nonchev, December 25, 2009
Lawful execution is state-sanctioned murder. And just because it is allowed to happen does not mean it's not wrong. A more reasonable criteria for what is murder is "killing someone that is not an immediate threat to your or anyone's life".[...]


No. Try to follow the argument. What is lawful is by definition not murder. Be reasonable in one hand and spit in the other; see which one fills up first. The world is simply not the way you want it to be. On the other hand, anti-globalization protests are great places to hook up with college girls. A Che t-shirt works wonders.


In any case a better example is
"And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel. And David saved neither man nor woman alive" -- 1 Samuel 27:8-9

Can you think of any possible moral justification for genocide? Me neither.


That one's easy: because it benefits me. The imperative to spread my DNA totally rulz. David had to kill the women because they might have bad DNA inside them.

Note that he took "the apparel". Thus began the rag trade. Remember Jerry Lewis and Ron Silver as father and son on Wiseguy?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
@Sean Sturgeon

My favorite bible story is the Parable of the Roman Tax Collector Whom Jesus Decided not to Confront Lest He Cause a Scene.


a. it wasn't a Parable;
b. Jesus didn't confront the tax collector;
c. it was the tax collector who caused a scene.

Good try. A sceptic might have checked the book.


From Jesuscentral.com

"Whenever Jesus wasn't preaching or teaching you'd find Him at a party. It might be at a tax collector's or at a Pharisee's home (religious leader). The guests might include power men in the community or the riffraff. What seemed to bother the stuffy, "religious" [and self-proclaimed "sceptical"] types wasn't that Jesus went to parties, but that He seemed to enjoy Himself too much."

St. Paul was a self-hating heterosexual-with-issues. If I could time-travel I would go back and stone him to death myself for being such a busybody.

Apparently the killing of homosexuals only became an issue for you when Warren commented on it. Well, whatever. I, myself, have been against it all along.

This article reeks of quota-filling. I expect better of the JREF.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by MJG, December 25, 2009
I think he was the original bass player for Def Leppard


This is an unreasonable insult to the talented Rick Savage!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
@popsaw
written by Nonchev, December 25, 2009
I am sorry for my error. I looked up the definition of "murder" and I found out that capital punishment when ordered by a legitimate court of law after a due process is excluded from the definition. So I agree we should remove, for example, the lawful stoning to death as such from the really long, long list of deaths described in the bible.

Still, genocide by extermination is not lawful and never has been (by the victim's laws at least smilies/wink.gif). So it's still murder (and it's still state-sanctioned by the other state, though not lawful in any sense of the word).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
@Caller X

Apparently the killing of homosexuals only became an issue for you when Warren commented on it. Well, whatever. I, myself, have been against it all along.


Are you naturally satire-averse or is it a learned condition?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
@Caller X

Apparently the killing of homosexuals only became an issue for you when Warren commented on it. Well, whatever. I, myself, have been against it all along.

Are you naturally satire-averse or is it a learned condition?


If by "satire-averse" you mean "against the killing of homosexuals qua homosexuals, naturally. If you're for killing homosexuals, live and let live, I suppose... oh, wait a minute...

I suppose I acquired my aversion to quota-filling articles during my superb education.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
@Caller X

What in the (obviously) satirical article proposes that any mistreatment of homosexuals is normally okay?

Be specific.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
@Caller X

What in the (obviously) satirical article proposes that any mistreatment of homosexuals is normally okay?

Be specific.


I'm not aware of any satirical artical, but you may be referring to Sean's use of the term "fagalas". Pa-rump-a-rump-pum.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by DrMatt, December 25, 2009
I would have understood this better if the facts had been presented without comment.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Sean, December 25, 2009
I think that term is being applied to the Rick Warren camp.

And in an article that says...

Since the bill was so obviously vile — Uganda is explicitly endorsing killing homosexuals and AIDS sufferers


...I'm having a hard time as seeing your current effort as anything other than hot gas. Your superb education, notwithstanding, of course. If you decide to interpret the article as somehow maintaining a stance against homosexuals, your are straining the text and just looking for attention.

Here is the wrong tree - bark up it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Missing the point...
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
Whether the author wants to use a Yiddish word for a gay man is beside the point - the article condemns the Pastor and with no intimation of bigotry being otherwise okay.

That's it - that's all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@Caller X
written by Nonchev, December 25, 2009
Still, genocide by extermination


as opposed to by the other ways?


I know that you're just trolling the whole thread, but genocide can happen without extermination. For example, by preventing people to breed you can kill a whole race in a century. It is still genocide, but not murder.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by monstrmac1, December 25, 2009
This is a ridiculous article attacking someone's character. This is the kind of thing that makes skeptics look terrible. Its an obvious agenda. I'm totally pro gay rights, but I'm anti-slander and thats all this article does. Cut the bias and stick to facts and maybe you could have made a reasonable point.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, December 25, 2009
Furthermore, the law you cite was unique to the Israelites who in he bible had a 'covenant arrangement' with God, who exacted exclusive devotion from the nation and moral uprightness in return for his special favour and protection.


Ah, I see. You were being deceptive. You wanted us to find examples God sanctioned murder in the Bible but that's impossible becuase anything God sanctions is lawful by definition and therefore not murder. Very "clever".

Out of curiousity, do you think non-virginal women should be executed?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by KingMerv00, December 25, 2009
Anyway, I'll accept your technical definition of "murder". That being said, the laws recommended in the Bible are not "unpalatable", they are replusive, sexist, immoral, and barbaric. They may not be "murder" but they are just as bad as murder.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@incredulous & KingMerv00
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
Missing the point...
written by incredulous, December 25, 2009
Whether the author wants to use a Yiddish word for a gay man is beside the point


Oy, he should spell it correctly then. Perhaps I should use the shortened American English version, or perhaps I could jet over to London in search of a cigarette. The issue is that Sean apparently had no issue with Shwartzes (since we're okay with Yiddish) killing other Shwartzes until Rev. whathisname said something about it, and then Sean is focused on the Rev's schedule and not the Shwartzes being killed. By the way, the killing predated the law by quite a bit.


written by KingMerv00, December 25, 2009
Anyway, I'll accept your technical definition of "murder". That being said, the laws recommended in the Bible are not "unpalatable", they are replusive, sexist, immoral, and barbaric. They may not be "murder" but they are just as bad as murder.


Especially the one that says "Thou shalt not do murder." Do I need to remind you that "laws" are by definition not recommended?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
@nonchev
written by Caller X, December 25, 2009
I know that you're just trolling the whole thread, but genocide can happen without extermination. For example, by preventing people to breed you can kill a whole race in a century. It is still genocide, but not murder.


Nah, just trying to give some alterna-chick a memory she'll regret for years by urging you to don the Che T-shirt and hie thee to the nearest anti-globalization protest.

You do realize that now you've changed your position to "genocide is not murder" right? Please try to keep track of your own argument.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by KingMerv00, December 25, 2009
Especially the one that says "Thou shalt not do murder." Do I need to remind you that "laws" are by definition not recommended?


Probably my fault, but I'm trying to understand how your post relates to mine.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by KingMerv00, December 25, 2009
Who voted down my last post? I wasn't being sarcastic. I just said I didn't understand. Jeez.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
@Caller X
written by Nonchev, December 26, 2009
Still trolling I see.

I explicitly state that since I understood that murder is a word used explicitly for unlawful killings, I dropped the charge that stoning in the bible was always murder. Sometimes it was, sometimes not, depends on the background.

You do realize that now you've changed your position to "genocide is not murder" right? Please try to keep track of your own argument.

Are you quote mining? (poorly at that). Genocide itself may or may not include extermination, as in
... genocide can happen without extermination. For example, by preventing people to breed you can kill a whole race in a century. It is still genocide, but not murder.


The bible genocide accounts are ones of extermination. That is murder, since you cannot use the "lawful" part to justify the deaths of those people.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...Caller X - still missing the point...
written by incredulous, December 26, 2009
Perhaps I should use the shortened American English version, or perhaps I could jet over to London in search of a cigarette.


But you will certainly miss the point, regardless.

This is not the first written piece where the author uses a term like that to illustrate the perspective of the party being whacked for being intolerant. The intent here is clear.

Instead, you have elected to key on the use of thew word while stripping it from the context of the article.

You're obviously smarter than that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Skeptic Doug, December 26, 2009
December was not a great month on Randi.org Let's hope that 2010 beings us substantial improvements in the articles and comments. I would like to read more thoughtful, well-researched articles. Zippy sarcasm is fun to read. For a while. without good content, sarcasm quickly gets stale. I would also like to read better comments in the responses section. There are too many clever or witty responses that seem to be posted just to impress.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, December 26, 2009
Could you name one law that would be detrimental if adhered to?


Yes. The three I listed and roughly 60% of the 10 commandments.

I take from your statement that you do think it is a good idea to murder butcher non-virginal women on their wedding night?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by KingMerv00, December 26, 2009
December was not a great month on Randi.org Let's hope that 2010 beings us substantial improvements in the articles and comments. I would like to read more thoughtful, well-researched articles.


As one of the authors (not of this particular article), it is nice to have criticism. On the other hand, if we changed the articles to fit the desires of individual posters, someone else would complain. It's a no win scenario. In the end, I think it is just better to let people write what they want.

If you still feel strongly, you are invited to try and write your own articles. (That's not sarcasm. That's a honest to god friendly suggestion.)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
@ King Merv
written by popsaw, December 26, 2009
Those are not laws, they are punishments for breaking the law. Is there a Mosaic law you believe would be detrimental if adhered to?
Regarding your question about virginal women, I did not answer the question as it made no sense to me. It still does not. If you can elaborate, I will answer.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by KingMerv00, December 26, 2009
Those are not laws, they are punishments for breaking the law.


Please stop playing with semantics. The punishments are part of God's supposed word and as such are part of the his wishes. Those wishes are repulsive. I don't care how carefully you define "murder" or "law". I wish you would just take a real stand on the issue instead of retreating into a dictionary.

Is there a Mosaic law you believe would be detrimental if adhered to?


Already answered you.

Regarding your question about virginal women, I did not answer the question as it made no sense to me. It still does not.


I quoted the Bible above: ""But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)"

Do you think that is a good idea or a bad idea? If it is a bad idea, what is it doing in the Bible?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@King Merv
written by popsaw, December 26, 2009
I am sorry you do not recognize accepted definitions of words but there is a definite difference between law and punishment. I asked which of the Mosaic LAW you felt detrimental to the adherent.Obviously it go without saying that the punishment for breaking the law is detrimental, that is the idea! So which law is detrimental?
Re (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
The example you cite is one of punishment for a serious immoral act, contrary to Gods law and covenant arrangement which the Israelites had agreed to be bound by and was in place to keep the nation orally clean and free from serious diseases. I do not feel my view is relevant but for the record, I believe the bible is Gods inspired word and that all his laws are for mans benefit and the punishments for breaking them are just.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
@nonchev and mervgriffin
written by Caller X, December 26, 2009
written by Nonchev, December 26, 2009
Still trolling I see.


That's a slave term and I do not accept it.

I explicitly state that since I understood that murder is a word used explicitly for unlawful killings, I dropped the charge that stoning in the bible was always murder. Sometimes it was, sometimes not, depends on the background.

You do realize that now you've changed your position to "genocide is not murder" right? Please try to keep track of your own argument.


Are you quote mining? (poorly at that). Genocide itself may or may not include extermination, as in

... genocide can happen without extermination. For example, by preventing people to breed you can kill a whole race in a century. It is still genocide, but not murder.


ahh, "quote mining". I sense a disturbance in the Force. A Wikipedia editor he is. Asperger's card he will play.

So on occasions when genocide is not murder (which seems to change from day to day), are you for genocide or against it?



The bible genocide accounts are ones of extermination. That is murder, since you cannot use the "lawful" part to justify the deaths of those people.


Please, "Bible" is properly capitalized. I already gave you the justification, the built-in one, original equipment: the need to seed. Totally justified. And lawful by virtue of being successful.

History is written by the winners and as the Russian mathematician Ouspenskii wrote, "All history is the history of crime." Dresden much? Trail of Tears much? Nuremburg much?

Then MervGriffin wrote:


I quoted the Bible above: ""But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)"

Do you think that is a good idea or a bad idea? If it is a bad idea, what is it doing in the Bible?


To put paid to that line of argument, yes, I think it's a good idea, precisely because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Happy now? Problem solved. Of course these days it would be illegal, at least here in the US or in modern Israel, and even back in the day it would have been busybodies enforcing that particular law. Too much like work for me to really care about.


Sean Sturgeon wrote: "The real trouble starts in Uganda." Let me commend to your attention, S.S., a couple neighboring countries: Sudan and Rwanda. Perhaps you've heard of them. Sudan for sure has queer-killers. You seem more concerned with criticizing the good Rev than the actual problem. Well, priorities, I suppose. Quotas and such.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@popsaw
written by KingMerv00, December 26, 2009
I'm not getting into a semantic debate with you because the definitions of certain words are not relevant. I will discuss this though:

The example you cite is one of punishment for a serious immoral act...


Not appearing to be a virgin is an immoral act? You do know that some women are born without a hymen and others tear it through physical activity? Where is the law that says men to be stoned to death for being "unclean"? That would prevent disease too.

...which the Israelites had agreed to be bound by and was in place to keep the nation orally clean and free from serious diseases.


Women did not agree to this of their own free will. The fathers, husbands, and (male) preachers may have. Property doesn't usually get a say in how it should be governed.

I do not feel my view is relevant but for the record, I believe the bible is Gods inspired word and that all his laws are for mans benefit and the punishments for breaking them are just.


So your answer is "yes". Would you support a similar law today?

Your opinion is relevant because to have a conversation with you, I need to understand your interpretation of the bible. That way, I don't spend needless time arguing against opinions you don't have.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
I have a problem with the tenor of this argument
written by ScanningFool, December 28, 2009
I do not think that this article should have been published as a Swift. There are many things that I find wrong with this article. First, it seems to be simply an ad hominem attack on Rick Warren and not a very good one at that. As an atheist and skeptic I have no love or respect for the works of Rick Warren and his Saddleback ministry. I do have love and respect for the JREF and I think this article's tenor and content to be way below JREF's usually high standards. Who cares whether this guy takes two weeks to condemn this obviously ridiculous law. To somehow link him with this Ugandan preacher because of his speaking at his AIDS event several years ago seems a bit of a stretch due to the many people who also spoke (Barack Obama for instance). He also supposedly severed ties with this guy in 2007 although that doesn't really matter. Also, it seems that your big source for this story is the Huffington Post. You might as well have used WorldNetDaily or Fox News as they are equally biased and slanted but on opposite extremes. I understand you being upset about this law (that will most likely never get passed by the way) but to try and attack this "minister" and in such a juvenile way is not what I expect to find when I read Swift. It is more what I would expect to find in the forum or as a comment not as an actual Swift article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
'I'll form ... the body...'
written by warreno, December 28, 2009
Also, as a Megapastor, he and four of his colleagues can unite to form Voltron.


With Haggard, of course, being the head.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@Scanning Fool
written by incredulous, December 28, 2009
Didn't the Voltron line serve as a dead giveaway? It's a humor column.

This guy has written three (I think) of these and there's always a few folks with no humor radar who miss the point entirely. I've been a longtime lurker here and the attempt to include one lighter column on this site is in no way a compromise or a downgrade.

Also, while this is a great website its not exactly an academic journal either, so lets put that to rest too.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@ incredulous
written by ScanningFool, December 31, 2009
Oh yeah, it was a laugh riot. I see that there are some elements of sarcastic humor attempted and to a small degree successfully. I do, however, get really tired of these ad hominem attacks instead of attacking ideas and methods. Back when Swift was written by Randi it was actually informative and included humor that was usually funny as opposed to this bitter screed. I know that it is not an academic journal but I hope that it doesn't become something where this sort of thing is commonplace outside of the forum and comments sections.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Caller X, January 01, 2010
They're filling a quota, in the tireless quest to discover the Wagg Boson. If ScanningFool is saying the article isn't funny, BINGO! Just making fun of someone isn't humor, especially when you effort sucks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by incredulous, January 01, 2010
With humor being fairly subjective, agreeing to disagree seems apt. However, I don't see any real ad hominem work in this article, and I think you are being kind of an old moaner calling it a bitter screed.

You're being needlessly and excessively harsh - but, hey: welcome to the internet!

For me, having new things is worth some effort, even if it is not from the expected part of the menu - and you clearly don't agree. You may not like the work, but don't be such a typical internet thug just by crapping on everyone's head when they cross your sensibilities.

Lighten up.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Caller X, January 02, 2010
written by incredulous, January 01, 2010
With humor being fairly subjective, agreeing to disagree seems apt. However, I don't see any real ad hominem work in this article, and I think you are being kind of an old moaner calling it a bitter screed.


Hardly. Humor is tragedy + time. Remember when Idi Amin used to serve his opponents' body parts at banquets? Also in Uganda. Where was Sean "S.S." Sturgeon on that matter? "Old moaner"? I prefer to borrow Quentin Crisp's line about being "one of the stately old homos of England."

You're being needlessly and excessively harsh - but, hey: welcome to the internet!

For me, having new things is worth some effort, even if it is not from the expected part of the menu - and you clearly don't agree. You may not like the work, but don't be such a typical internet thug just by crapping on everyone's head when they cross your sensibilities.


Maybe you should live your own life. You've not been harmed. The term "thug" is out of line, or would be if this was polite society.


Lighten up.


Smoke 'em if you got 'em, I say.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Sarge, January 03, 2010
Several comments have been made about murder in the Bible, whether or not the Commandant "Thou shalt not kill (or murder)." I find it interesting that though the prohibition is in place it is frequently violated by the Judeo-Christian Diety by action or command. My examples follow:

The entire population of the earth except for eight survivors (Genesis 7:23)
Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah except for one family (Genesis 19:24)
Every first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)
All the hosts of the Pharaoh, including the captains of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:27,2smilies/cool.gif
Amalek and his people (Exodus 17:11,16)
3,000 Israelites (Exodus 32:27)
250 Levite princes who had challenged the leadership of Moses (Numbers 16:1-40)
14,700 Jews in a plague who had rebelled against Moses following the killing of the princes (Numbers 16:41-49)
All the subjects of Og (Numbers 21:34, 35)
24,000 Israelites who lived with Moabite women (Numbers 25:4, 9)
All the males, kings, and non-virgin females of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7, smilies/cool.gif
The Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19-21)
The Horims (Deuteronomy 2:22)
All the citizens of Jericho, except for a prostitute and her family (Joshua 6)
12,000 citizens of Ai. Joshua hanged the king on a tree. (Joshua 8:1-30)
All the people of Makkedah (Joshua 10:2smilies/cool.gif
All the people of Libnah (Joshua 10:29, 30)
All the people of Gezer (Joshua 10:33)
All the people of Lachish (Joshua 10:32)
All the people of Eglon (Joshua 10:34, 35)
All the people of Hebron (Joshua 10:36, 37)
All the inhabitants of 1 of the country of the hills, and of the south, and the vale, and of the springs and all their kings (Joshua 10:40)
All 31 kings and inhabitants of their countries, and south country, and the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same from Mt. Halak to Mt. Hermon (Joshua 11:12, 16, 17, 12:24)
10,000 Moabites (Judges 3:29)
10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites (Judges 1:4)
600 Phillistines (Judges 3:31)
All of Sisera (Judges 4:16)
120,000 Midianites (Judges 8:10)
25,100 Benjaminites (Judges 20:35)
50,070 people of Bethshemesh (I Samuel 6:19)
All the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3, 7)
The armies and five kings of the Amorites (Amos 3:2)
The Moabites and 22,000 Syrians (II Samuel 8:2, 5, 6, 14)
40,000 Syrian horsemen (II Samuel 10:1smilies/cool.gif
100,000 Syrian footmen, followed by 27,000 who are all crushed by a wall (I Kings 20:28, 29, 30)
42 children eaten by a bear (II Kings 2:23, 24)
185,000 Assyrians killed by an angel (II Kings 19:35)
10,000 Edomites, followed by 10,000 more whose killers brought them to the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they were broken in pieces (II Chronicles 2smilies/cool.gif
120,000 Judeans (II Chronicles 2smilies/cool.gif
75,000 Persians (Esther 9:16)

Am I in error? Did I take something out of context? Are all these examples not murder by the legal definition? Well, I guess the technical term in some cases would be "Genocide"! Than kyou for reading...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Caller X, January 03, 2010
Sarge wrote:


Am I in error? Did I take something out of context? Are all these examples not murder by the legal definition? Well, I guess the technical term in some cases would be "Genocide"! Than kyou for reading...


The Bible is just one big rap album. Lotta talk, not much walk. The 'Brews just weren't all that gangsta in real life. Jesus on the other hand was a stone cold pimp. The Ice T of his day. Three OG's from the East Side hooked him up with mad bling early on. Judas Iscariot? "Iscariot" means he was the blade specialist, and he was in on the con from Jump Street. My man walked into The Carter, took a serious beatdown, and a couple days later, he rolled, with/con/avec/mit some FINE bitches. Couple months later he was on the beach in Baja with Jesse Ventura, Bill Shatner, Marjoe Gortner, Robert Reed, and Andy Griffith.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by jcwept, January 04, 2010
While many in the Middle East attempt to maintain mediaeval morality systems with 21st century technology, here in the West some simply use 21st century technology to debate the validity of mediaeval moralily systems. Climate change is the least of our worries - though on a lighter noter, I did see a herablist/acupuncturist with a 'closing down' sign outside. the other day.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:55