sniper-god worshipping Mojo will step in for the Pres on this one;

1: Canadian slaves can be used to help move the Expos to Wash D.C. Otherwise, they're worthless.

2: Start a thread here in the lavender room; "I'm selling my daughter into slavery" and I will start the bidding. Don't forget to post a pic w/ vitals

3: Typical f$%king liberal. The word of God is clear and you're worried about what your friends think.

4: When your friend asks you to join him on a bike ride the next day, you should decline.

5: Most gay bars serve shrimp COCK-tail appetizers. I suggest you find the answer firsthand.

6: Lasik

7: Find some new friends

8: Play with a Nerf football. It's easier on soul, as well as the hands.

9: Stone them to death first. Bring their bodies to the middle of the field and light 'em up. Call the fire department to monitor the slaying to be sure the fire doesn't destroy the crops of neighboring farmers who plant only one crop and therefore are free of sin.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

So now GWB is to blame for Leviticus. If you want to attack the Bible, just do it honestly. Don't bring Bush into it.

Can't you guys ever let go?

Maybe you missed the memo, but there was something called the New Testament that revised a lot. If you want to bash, say, Sharon for the Old Testiment, note that there are five thousand years of Jewish religious teachings that revise parts of the Old Testament as well.

Don't know how a well informed person like yourself missed this. It was in all the papers.

"Maybe you missed the memo, but there was something called the New Testament that revised a lot."

Which parts did it revise? Is there any statement in the New Testament that mentions the evils of homosexuality? If so, why don't the religious zealots point to that one instead of Leviticus? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I seriously want to know. I have to admit that I haven't studied the New Testament in many, many years. However, so many religious ant-gay people say that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. What I want to know is how do they reconcile that with other Old Testament verses that have been "overruled" by the New Testament?

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

I don't claim to be a religious scholar. Still, I do offer the not so obsure example of Jesus preventing the stoning of an adultress by a mob. Using only the strength of his moral authority, he urged that he in the crowd who was without sin should throw the first stone.

It is pretty hard to take Leviticus seriously. It is unlike any other book in the Bible. I wonder about the history of its inclusion into the modern Bible. It just seems like a book that never should have made the cut. I hope that doesn't make me a heretic.

There are things that are yet more silly though. I would include blaming Bush for Leviticus among them.

I am about as conservative as anyone on this forum, but I get a real chuckle out of anyone that quotes Leviticus to reach a moral conclusion on homosexuality.

"There are things that are yet more silly though. I would include blaming Bush for Leviticus among them."

Well... I didn't get the "blaming Bush for Leviticus" theme from the post. I just saw it as a humorous poke at the Bible thumpers... a group with whom Bush (whether rightly, or wrongly, I don't know) has been lumped.

"It is pretty hard to take Leviticus seriously. It is unlike any other book in the Bible. I wonder about the history of its inclusion into the modern Bible. It just seems like a book that never should have made the cut. I hope that doesn't make me a heretic. "

I'm sure you're not a heretic... If you are, then I'm in DEEEEEEP shit. What I don't get, then, is where does the Bible say homosexuality is "wrong" other than in Leviticus? Does it? If not, and we don't take Leviticus seriously, then where's the Biblical support for saying homosexuality is "wrong?" If we DO take Leviticus seriously, as the difinitive idea that homosexuality is wrong, then how can we disregard what was written in the original post to this thread?

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

"Is there any statement in the New Testament that mentions the evils of homosexuality?"

Romans 1 26

1 Corinthians 6 9

1 Timothy 1 8

> "What I don't get, then, is where does the Bible say homosexuality is "wrong" other than in Leviticus? Does it? If not, and we don't take Leviticus seriously, then where's the Biblical support for saying homosexuality is "wrong?" If we DO take Leviticus seriously, as the difinitive idea that homosexuality is wrong, then how can we disregard what was written in the original post to this thread?"

Exactly. Well said, steveperx.

I thought the original post was a classic (i.e. "huge"). Those of you who respond by saying that it is an unwarranted attack on Bush are missing the whole point.

In any event, the recent discussions of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage got me thinking how silly it is to use religious edicts or interpretation of scripture as a basis for civil laws. Even the 10 commandments are not supported by law. Last time I checked, there was no law against adultery (not to mention taking the Lord's name in vain, honoring thy parents, coveting, etc.). Adultery would seem to be a much more direct and serious threat to the sanctity of marriage. Would anyone here support a constitutional amendment criminalizing adultery?

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

jdavis1040. Taking parts of the bible and excluding others (ie. the New Testament) just shows us how naive and uninformed you are. To do that to take a political stab at Bush is a joke. Give it up.


Given that this was posted here a week ago, I'm going to presume that jdavis1040 didn't actually author the piece, but merely posted it here because he/she thought it was funny. Which it is IMHO.



Jesus would tell us that even if we are to hate the acts of homosexuals, we are still commanded to love the people.


I don't recall Jesus ever speaking about homosexuality at all



If man acts with hatred to anyone, they are not acting in the true spirit of Jesus' teachings.


So true.

---

_______________________________________________

When are the religious folks going to realize that the many of the stories in the Bible are simply myths, just like other "historical stories" that were written thousands of years ago?

I am by far no where near religious, and can't even begin to pretend to know what is in the bible aside from what I learned on "David and Goliath" but the simple fact remains that many of the stories are embellishments of what really happened. Do I believe that there was a massive flood? Yes. Do I believe that it "rained for 40 days and for 40 nights? No. Do I believe that Noah collected a pair of every single animal? Not at all.

When the modern public realize that many of the stories are myths, and the characters that are described are much larger than the real person that they are based on, then maybe we will see that many of the so called "laws" of the bible have absolutely no reference to today.

Why do I say these things? Because I studed Classical Mythology (Greek Gods, Roman Gods and many of the stories). There are striking similarities between the stories of the Bible and Classical Mythology. Does that mean that I believe in Zues, Athena et al? Of course not. Do I believe that there was an Achilles? Yes. Do I believe that he was dipped in the river and the only vulnerable spot was his heel? Of course not. However, you must understand that these stories were created because: a) the people of the time had no scientific explanation, and therefore created their Gods as a way to explain, and b) Stories were passed by word of mouth, and the story tellers over the years embellished, improved and created grandiose tales out of historical occurances. I am sure that the same could be said of the Bible, and the stories it tells.

So there is my more than 2 cents worth. At the end of the day, you cannot dictate, rule or base many decisions because of what was written in a 5000 year old book that has little reference to today's modern society.

PS. No I am not saying that murder should be acceptable, that infidelity is right etc. These are laws that govern a society. Simply because they are written in a book doesn't mean that the rest of the book is entirely factual or should be accepted at face value.

Mark

Not surprisingly, tri_bri2 answers your question better than I could. I didn't think the issue was addressed in the New Testament. I will have to check his references.

so, just to make sure i understand: Leviticus is out; Genesis and the other OT books are in, right?

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

apologies for being offensive, apologies for posting something that has already made its rounds. I dont frequent the Lavender room much, and had never seen this until receiving it as an e-mail today. I did not post it to be funny, I posted it because I thought some of the more liberal ST'rs would find it a good read. Im not a scholar of the Bible, but I will still never understand the purpose of the old testament and its "just for decoration value" You cant pick and choose what parts of religion you believe in and follow. Again, apologies.

"You cant pick and choose what parts of religion you believe in and follow"

Can I get an Amen!!!!!!

I am not qualified to answer your question except to say that it is overly simplistic. You need to look at the entire body of teaching, not just the Bible. This will complicate your search for the one soundbite whose absurdity proves all religion and religious people inane, but sometimes life can be complicated.

Having said that, I think Leviticus is a joke. Hopefully, I'll not be burned at the stake.

"You cant pick and choose what parts of religion you believe in and follow."

Sure you can. The Protestants did it in grand fashion. So did the Episcopalians. So do reform Jews.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Here you go Art:

Romans 1: 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Timothy: 5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned: 6 from which things some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking; 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, 9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; 11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

1 Corinthians: 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

"You cant pick and choose what parts of religion you believe in and follow."

Sure you can. You choose those parts which reinforce your own beliefs and you disregard and totally ignore those that might weaken your position of beliefs.

-- "You cant pick and choose what parts of religion you believe in and follow."

-- Sure you can. You choose those parts which reinforce your own beliefs and you disregard and totally ignore those that might weaken your position of beliefs.

Hey, sounds like politics!

Well, theologians picked and chose when they decided which books of the Bible to include in the first place....

(and no need to apologize....)

---

_______________________________________________

"...Leviticus is a joke..."

My understanding as a "non-expert" is that Leviticus was part of the "Old Covenant"--the laws and rules of the Kings, Judges, and Prophets who preceded Jesus. When God sent Jesus as our savior he established a "New Covenant." Therefore the "laws" of Leviticus do not necessarily apply. I certainly do not think I am "unclean" because I eat shrimp!

The New Testament tells the story of the woman who was caught in adultery, for which the punishment under Leviticus was death. When a mob of men asked Jesus if they should stone her to death, he told them, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So--as far as homosexuality is concerned, I think this teaches us that it is not our job to judge or punish it all the while we may see it as sinful. It is the ultimate judgement of God.

Art - I'm not looking for a soundbite or trying to show that people who are religious are inane. I am highly skeptical of those who seek to judge others, though, whether they be religious zealots or not. Since you seem like a bit of libertarian (could be wrong), this should appeal to you.

On another point, no matter what the OT or NT say, why should that guide our current civil laws? First, we have that thing called the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Second, not everyone in America is Christian (which is why we have the est. cl. in the first place).

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

I don't think of myself as a libertarian, though I used to be one way back when. I now think of myself as a conservative.

I don't think that the Bible should guide our current civil laws directly, but our collective sense of right and wrong certainly does. These beliefs are certainly affected by our religious education.

Please don't give me the line about not legislating morality. We legislate very little else. From our murder laws, to our speeding laws, to our contract laws to our progressive tax system, we legislate our collective morality.

Libertarians basically believe that there is no right and wrong, or at least that everyone decides that for themselves so long as no one else is injured. I reject that philosophy, though I admit it is logical, consistent and often leads to effective and creative policies.

Judge not least you, yourself be judged. That is good advise that I try to live by. Sometimes I even succeed.

There appears to be a freedom of religion as long as it's not Christianity.


Well, if a Muslim judge tried to put up a statue of the Koran in a courthouse the issue would probably he handled by lynch mob, not in the courts!

If there's a backlash aginst Christianity, it's because of morons like Roy Moore. There seem to be some people who just don't get it when it comes to keeping government and religion separate. I don't think any signiicant number of people dislike Christianity per se.

---

_______________________________________________

I won't disagree that we legislate morality to some extent. But the examples you site have a much more practical reason: safety. Even libertarians support laws criminalizing murder because it is non-consensual. A better example would be suicide, which I happen to think is a stupid law (and I am not a libertarian). Moving just a little further down the spectrum, speeding laws are justifiable because they are also meant to protect public safety. Speeders are more likely (supposedly) to endanger others, as well as themselves. This also imposes real out-of-pocket costs on society in the form of things like ambulances and police and fire response.

Progressive taxes is a much more interesting issue. One could clearly argue that a progressive tax is based on a moral judgment, but that is not the only justification/explanation. One could also argue that a progressive tax rate is simply the mathematical expression that comes closest to taxing people equally, based on what they can afford to pay. In other words, 10% to someone earning $50k hurts them just as much as 30% to someone earning $1 million (these are made-up numbers). In that sense, the tax rate is really equal. you will probably scoff at this idea, but I happen to believe it. In any event, the tax rate is clearly a collective problem that we must all deal with as a society.

Back to the subject at hand, laws governing what goes on in the bedroom are not necessary and have no other possible justification other than needlessly imposing the moral view of the majority on third parties. As long as no one else is affected, I don't think the majority's moral position should guide, regardless of whether it is rooted in the Bible or not.

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

Well sure laws are drawn up for safety among other reasons, but the trade off of safety for freedom is a moral choice. Suicide is not against any law of which I am aware. Attempted suicide is. That is a moral choice. Sure, you can cloak it with other rationalizations, but at the end of the day it is a statement about society's value of the life of an individual. Ditto for speeding laws.

Plenty of arguments go back and forth about trying to regulate bedroom behavior. At root both the law itself, and society's decision as to what effort should actually go into enforcing such laws are moral choices.

"There appears to be a freedom of religion as long as it's not Christianity."

Yeah... those poor persecuted Christian Americans. We need to do something to help them.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

I'm nothing, if not predictable.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

>"To use the NT as a guide is not a bad way to start."

Maybe. Maybe not. Why should we start with the NT as a guide for our current civil laws? Why not start with the Koran or some other religious text? Or, better yet, why not start with the idea that we should only pass those laws that are necessary or beneficial to society and then figuring out what those are?

>"The idea behind the First Amendment it was to allow people freedom of religion and to allow people not to be persecuted because of their religious beliefs."

No, that's the idea behind the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The establishment clause is the one that says there should be separation between church and state. Which is another reason why we shouldn't start with the NT as the basis for our current civil laws.

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

Seriously, though, I get your argument. It does seem to be quite un-PC to be Christian in this country... despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the USA are in fact, Christian.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Well... I was raised Christian, and still consider myself Christian, although I haven't been to church since I got married five years ago. I agree with the fundamental belief of Christianity... that Jesus was the son of God and was crucified and died for my sins, and was raised from the dead.

However, I also have a lot of problems with many of the generally accepted interpretations of the Bible... and I have a REALLY big problem with Christian zealots telling me that their interpretation is right, and mine is wrong, and I'm going to Hell if I don't believe the way they do, or that my Jewish or Muslim friends are wrong in their beliefs and that they're going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus as the son of God.

In short, I'm a Christian, but I'd have to say I belong to no established church. Call me an "independent" Christian or a Christian "light". Whatever. I try to live my life the way I think God wants me to... and I probably fail more often than I succeed. But I don't believe any one religion is "right" or "wrong." I think what truly matters is your own personal relationship with God.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

I hear that but truly have my doubts because a lot of people say they are Christian because their parents are or that is the way they were raised. If people actually acted like Christians I don't think there would be any of the animosity towards us, we are often our own worst enemies.

We actually had a very interesting sermon a bit ago about "how to know you have salvation"? We all know lots of people that are "saved" because they think Jesus is cool, and heaven seems like a nice place. Other than that they really don't believe anything else in the Bible or really out in practice any of Jesus's teachings. anything about sacrifice, service, restraint, reconcialiation, love, etc are outdated ideas in an old text not intended for this modern society.

anyway, our poastor pointed out that the key to salvation is "perseverence" .... true salvation means you want to live your life to emulating the teaching/model of Christ. I'll try to post the verses we covered, because there were some that said that many will be decieved into believing they are saved, when they are not.

I do not say this as if I am an extension of God determining who is and who is not saved? I say it as someone that wants his friends and others to explore whether they have true salvation or if they are "just in case" Chrisitians that may be fooled into thinking they have something they might not have.

Unfortunately, as in most things, the extreme views are the ones that get the most publicity.

The extreme views not only get the most publicity, but they are used to characterize everyone else remotely associated with them or sharing somewhat similar beliefs. We've done this with Race, Sex, etc .. now it's religion's turn.

-------------------------------

Of course, we legislate morality. You don't want Christian morality to be legislated ... come up with another source. Let me know what that source is.

Legislating safety takes away from freedom a little bit each day. In order for something to be illegal it should have a direct and provable correlation to infringing on another's rights. No, we have laws prohibiting anything that *might* infringe on somebody else. We're treating like children. Having laws in effect because the activity might affect someone else's pocketbook is very dangerous (and outright stupid, IMO). It could be shown that everything and anything can cause other's insurance rates ot taxes to increase ... and be grounds for being illegal. I don't want insurance companies telling me what should be legal or not.


I think people vastly over-estimate how much "safety" laws provide. Laws are a means of punishment, not prevention. An officer cannot arrest someone for murder, burglary, rape, etc until the action has already occurred.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

>"Of course, we legislate morality. You don't want Christian morality to be legislated ... come up with another source. Let me know what that source is."

I don't want to legislate anything for purely moral reasons because I don't want you or anyone else imposing your morality on me. Why should someone be able to impose their moral values on me any more than their religion?

>"Legislating safety takes away from freedom a little bit each day. In order for something to be illegal it should have a direct and provable correlation to infringing on another's rights. No, we have laws prohibiting anything that *might* infringe on somebody else."

This is just a balancing question. Where do you draw the line between safety and liberty. It is a very difficult issue for people to agree on, but it is the proper way to frame the debate. My point (above) is that as long as there is a safety or infringement factor, it is appropriate to debate whether and how to legislate it. Your point is simply that you don't agree with where our politicians have drawn some of the lines. Fair enough, but you can't please everyone when you are balancing intangible factors and drawing lines.

>"I don't want insurance companies telling me what should be legal or not."

That's an unfair and loaded way of phrasing it. The insurance companies are merely a good measure of the real-world costs of certain activities. One of the most appropriate things for government to legislate (IMHO) is collective action problems -- that is, problems that are in the best interest of everyone, as a group, but no one, individually, with the result that the free market won't correct for it (if you took economics, you will recall the so-called tragedy of the commons; this argument is also probably the best capitalist argument why communism fails). Many enviromnental regulations are good examples of this.

>"I think people vastly over-estimate how much "safety" laws provide. Laws are a means of punishment, not prevention. An officer cannot arrest someone for murder, burglary, rape, etc until the action has already occurred."

People vastly overestimate and vastly underestimate most macro-numbers. The effect is magnified when the consequences of a probability are particularly good or particularly bad. (I recommend the book Innummeracy on this phenomenon.) For example, people overestimate their chances of winning the lottery or dying in a plane crash.

As to your second point, laws are both a means of punishment and prevention. As preventative measures, they are not foolproof, but they probably work better than we realize. For example, I think a lot more people would steal, cheat on their taxes, and drive really fast if there were no penalties.

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones