Watch your haircuts bible-thumpers!

[SyntheticTacos]

A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality is that the bible forbids it. But what I'm curious as to is that if you wish to follow the Bible that closely, why aren't you observing the OTHER laws that Leviticus and the other books of the Old Testament describes?

Now for some of you guys this letter that circulated around for a while might be considered older than dirt, but I'm guessing there's a fair amount of people here who haven't seen it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlau ra.asp

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 I 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 him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) 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?

b) 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?

c) 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.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased 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?

e) 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?

f) 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?

g) 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?

h) 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?

i) 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?

j) 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, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

It also seems to have inspired a section of an episode of The West Wing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ

So, whatcha think about that? I hope this topic isn't too tired, hopefully some of you guys will find a little humor in the links I posted.

Picture of Bill Cosby added because NG seems to think I'm trying to post a picture somewhere somehow???

[Gunter45]

Well, personally, I've never really been one to take the Bible quite so literally, but I can field this one. The reasoning isn't that the Old Testament is law; most Christians take the New Testament as the replacement of the Old Testament law. However, they can still get away with feeling that homosexuality is a sin by looking at the book of Romans where it says that it's not alright for people to have intercourse with people of the same gender.

So I guess that's what you'd call a loophole.

[Korriken]

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

e) 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?

I'll grab the stones...

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 06:52 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Well, personally, I've never really been one to take the Bible quite so literally, but I can field this one. The reasoning isn't that the Old Testament is law; most Christians take the New Testament as the replacement of the Old Testament law. However, they can still get away with feeling that homosexuality is a sin by looking at the book of Romans where it says that it's not alright for people to have intercourse with people of the same gender.

So I guess that's what you'd call a loophole.

A lot of them quote Leviticus though. Maybe that'll get them to stop burning Harry Potter books though, and quoting other passages from it as an excuse to do stupid things.

As for the Book of Romans (which I'm glad you pointed out, I thought there was a NT reference that was cited sometimes), there are different ways to interpret that. I'll have to look into it more though.

This is the phrase, right?
"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Wikipedia (Yes, I know it's not the most reliable source) has some interesting info on it. Different versions translate it differently, so depending on which version you're looking at it it's more or less vague.
'

[Kahuna]

At 4/10/07 06:52 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Well, personally, I've never really been one to take the Bible quite so literally, but I can field this one. The reasoning isn't that the Old Testament is law; most Christians take the New Testament as the replacement of the Old Testament law. However, they can still get away with feeling that homosexuality is a sin by looking at the book of Romans where it says that it's not alright for people to have intercourse with people of the same gender.

So I guess that's what you'd call a loophole.

Actually the Old testemant is a Jewish book, but since christanity is born from judism they kept it because it is the same god and progresses the story. So the New testemant gives the moral code of living and the Old testemant is merely for the purpos of story telling

[Dre-Man]

Again, a thread by a fucking idiot who has never read a page of the Bible in his life.

Way to go, fucktard.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 07:12 PM, Kahuna wrote:

Actually the Old testemant is a Jewish book, but since christanity is born from judism they kept it because it is the same god and progresses the story. So the New testemant gives the moral code of living and the Old testemant is merely for the purpos of story telling

Honestly it's personal choice whether you believe it is law or a "documentary", the problem is people use it nowadays to try to enforce their religion on others. The other problem is that a lot of these people also have only heard the select passages that seem to defend their extremist position without really analyzing some of the really great passages you do find in Abrahamic literature.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 07:14 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, a thread by a fucking idiot who has never read a page of the Bible in his life.

Way to go, fucktard.

Hey hey hey Dre, how's it going? Actually, for your information I used to be a mainstream regularly-churchgoing Episcopal Christian, and I did go to catechism classes and read pages and passages from the bible, I heard sermons all the time and learned a lot about the Christian faith. Why don't you ask me about my religious background before you assume that I have no connection to Christianity at all?

[Gunter45]

At 4/10/07 07:12 PM, Kahuna wrote: Actually the Old testemant is a Jewish book, but since christanity is born from judism they kept it because it is the same god and progresses the story. So the New testemant gives the moral code of living and the Old testemant is merely for the purpos of story telling

You say "actually" like you provided a counter-point to what I said.

And Tacos, yeah, I'm glad you talked about all that, you brought up basically the whole argument with that, but, in my opinion, the passage from Romans seems pretty clear about it, and it seems like a stretch to interpret it another way. But like I said, I'm not about to get married to rules and regulations that were written almost 2000 years ago.

[stafffighter]

Religion, which I o beleive could be used as a wondeful system of community and inner strength is basically just a system by which the powerful hold their claims to power to be beyond reproach and control the masses by telling them who to hate.

Also, Leviticus seemed to be a bit of a tight ass. Why would God care about my haircut? Maybe if it showed off my 666 birthmark but otherwise, no.

[Dre-Man]

At 4/10/07 07:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hey hey hey Dre, how's it going? Actually, for your information I used to be a mainstream regularly-churchgoing Episcopal Christian, and I did go to catechism classes and read pages and passages from the bible, I heard sermons all the time and learned a lot about the Christian faith. Why don't you ask me about my religious background before you assume that I have no connection to Christianity at all?

The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

[stafffighter]

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

He's right, Jesus had very unruly hair

[JoS]

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

I am rather enjoying the fact Dre that rather than attack the arguements he put forth you attack him. I would like to hear an actual rebuttle against the arguements, not simply flaming the author. Or do you actually have no defence so you think by attacking the author it will somehow make you seem smarter.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 07:29 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

He's right, Jesus had very unruly hair

Guys, this thread wasn't made about Jesus, it was about hard-liners using Leviticus as an excuse for bigotry.

Plus the passage I was referencing to make the title is from this part of the Laura letter:

"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?"

I didn't make this topic to diss all Christians or Jesus, it was made to ask why some hard-liners who interpret the Bible literally are so selective of which passages they reference as law or morality.

[SyntheticTacos]

I will admit that the title is kind of stupid though.

[reviewer-general]

At 4/10/07 07:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/10/07 07:14 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, a thread by a fucking idiot who has never read a page of the Bible in his life.

Way to go, fucktard.

Hey hey hey Dre, how's it going? Actually, for your information I used to be a mainstream regularly-churchgoing Episcopal Christian, and I did go to catechism classes and read pages and passages from the bible, I heard sermons all the time and learned a lot about the Christian faith. Why don't you ask me about my religious background before you assume that I have no connection to Christianity at all?

Nice job making an ass of yourself Dre. Maybe next time YOU should be the one to figure out what the fuck he's talking about , hmmm? Just a suggestion. Although it seems like you have a very pleasant time being a troll. Oh, are you going to actually respond to his thread?

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

*crestfallen*
Thought not. Shall I then? Good.

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

No one really takes those passages seriously anymore, except for maybe some radical extremists from the far end of the ideological spectrum. Times change, and Biblical law does too. I mean, it used to be a deadly sin if you ate meat on Friday. My theory is that the people who wrote the Bible way back then wanted some control over the followers. Do you think God REALLY cares what your hair is like, or what your diet is? No, he seems like a pretty understanding guy.

Plus, the writer of the letter was being a smartass to expose how rediculous that stuff is.

[jenny-cadaver]

so i quit reading right after you said "why dont you pay more attention to the old testement laws...."
christians go by the new testement...you know the one that comes right after the old one. When Jesus died up there on the cross he took away our sins and made it easier for you to get into heaven, one of the ways he did this was by making most of these laws obsolete. Jews go by the old test because they don't believe Jesus was the saviour of all mankind, just some random guy that thought he was the son of God. so why dont you take that bible and read it, then come back and talk to me.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 08:05 PM, jenny-cadaver wrote: so i quit reading right after you said "why dont you pay more attention to the old testement laws...."
christians go by the new testement...you know the one that comes right after the old one. When Jesus died up there on the cross he took away our sins and made it easier for you to get into heaven, one of the ways he did this was by making most of these laws obsolete. Jews go by the old test because they don't believe Jesus was the saviour of all mankind, just some random guy that thought he was the son of God. so why dont you take that bible and read it, then come back and talk to me.

Some people interpret the WHOLE entire Bible as the infallible word of God. I'm not talking about all Christians, I'm talking about some Christians. If you had been paying attention to the topic you would know I was talking about hard-line Christians and not all of them. READ: I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO INTERPRET THE OLD TESTAMENT AS PART OF CHRISTIAN LAW. NOT THE ONES THAT DON'T.

[fahrenheit]

At 4/10/07 07:29 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

He's right, Jesus had very unruly hair

so says da vinci

[Imperator]

At 4/10/07 07:35 PM, JoS wrote:.

I am rather enjoying the fact Dre that rather than attack the arguements he put forth you attack him. I would like to hear an actual rebuttle against the arguements, not simply flaming the author. Or do you actually have no defence so you think by attacking the author it will somehow make you seem smarter.

heheheh.....sick em JoS!!!!

[JakeHero]

At 4/10/07 07:14 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, a thread by a fucking idiot who has never read a page of the Bible in his life.

Way to go, fucktard.

Well that's not very christian.......

[troubles1]

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality

You are a idiot , that is the old testament and since Christian's are not Jew's we don't follow it, Get a life or read a book and gain some understanding into a subject you want to dispute.

[Memorize]

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality is that the bible forbids it. But what I'm curious as to is that if you wish to follow the Bible that closely, why aren't you observing the OTHER laws that Leviticus and the other books of the Old Testament describes?

Congrats, you've just sunk to a level of stupidity that i've never even heard of.

[Bolo]

At 4/10/07 09:56 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality

You are a idiot , that is the old testament and since Christian's are not Jew's we don't follow it, Get a life or read a book and gain some understanding into a subject you want to dispute.

I constantly get this phrase thrown at me. It seems that Christians are very quick to disown 90% of their "perfect" Word of God, as if they would cut out the Old Testament if they could, and use only the New Testament.

Christians always use this excuse to distance themselves from the heartless brutality of the killing of women and children at the hands of Moses, Joshua, David, etc., and yet they are sure quick to whip out Old Testament laws when it is convenient for them to do so. When the time comes for fire and brimstone, they'll quote from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers and Judges; but when the Freethinker brings up all the genocide and cruel inhumanity contained in those books, well, then they back off and say: "That's the Old Testament. Jesus came to bring the New Covenant."

When they wish to heap upon us the 10 Commandments, the Creation Story in Genesis that they want to force into our schools, Noah and his Big Boat, the Wisdom of Solomon (well, he DID have 700 wives and 300 concubines), or ask us to swallow Jonah and his Whale, they will pull out their bibles and open up right to the appropriate Old Testament verse. But when we complain about the cruelty and irrationality of Moses, the infinite cruelty of the Plagues of Egypt and the Pharaoh who was intentionally hardened by God, the butcher Joshua, the criminal David and his murderous raids, Saul the Terrible and the murder of the Amalekites and the hewing of the captured king, they say "Well, that's the Old Testament."

Wait a minute... we are talking about THE Bible here. We are talking about the one and only God that the Christians worship, aren't we? Are there two bibles, two gods?

What these Christians are doing is arguing for something that they claim NOT to believe in... namely "moral relativism": they are saying that morality is not fixed, and changes over time as humanity changes. Go figure...

Exactly how do they do this? How do they create two bibles from the one? They say things like: "Jesus said he came to fulfill the law-- the old law passed away." I think what has happened here is that some ministers have intentionally misunderstood the book of Hebrews. It says: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) The laws changed, not passed away. What changed was the need for a daily animal sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27-28). That is what the New Covenant was-- Jesus was a "human sacrifice" for the forgiveness sin, replacing the Old Covenant of sacrificing burnt offerings-- slaughtered animals-- for sins. (Hebrews 8:13). See also all of Chapter 9 of Hebrews, which describes the Old Covenant of burnt offerings, and Chapter 10 which describes how the New Covenant replaces the Old for the purging of sins. THAT is what the New Covenant is all about-- it means that Christians do not have to put on the butcher's apron and slaughter goats. That's what was changed. If the Christians are right about the "old laws passing away", then we could do away with the 10 Commandments, couldn't we? The "New Covenant" does not release Christians from the killing of homosexuals, or witches, blasphemers and the worshippers of other gods either. The leaders of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches knew this when they murdered hundreds of thousands of people just a few hundred years ago.

The next time some Christian tells you to live by the 10 Commandments, tell them: But that is the Old Testament. The 10 Commandments have been replaced by Jesus' new rules to live by:

Resist not evil. (Let evil take over the country, the world, I suppose?)
Love thine enemies. (What Christian ever did this? Is this even possible?) (Matthew 5:44)
Pray in secret... do not let men see you pray. (Matthew 6:1-7)
Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (carrying the death penalty). (Matthew 5:32)
Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42).
"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

[Memorize]

At 4/10/07 10:06 PM, Bolo wrote:

I constantly get this phrase thrown at me. It seems that Christians are very quick to disown 90% of their "perfect" Word of God, as if they would cut out the Old Testament if they could, and use only the New Testament.

Here's your entire problem.

-We live by the New Testament
-9/10 of the commandments are stated in the New (omitted is "keep the sabbath holy")
-I like how you take verses out of context (typical of an anti-christian shit hole, like you)
-Many of those you listed were figurative language.

WEE! Your stupidity knows no bounds!

[Bolo]

At 4/10/07 10:59 PM, Memorize wrote: -We live by the New Testament

And yet you quote and cite from the Old Testament as being as much a truth to Christianity as the New Testament. Just when the fancy suits you—then it becomes "not ofiicially part of the faith", eh?

-9/10 of the commandments are stated in the New (omitted is "keep the sabbath holy")

But where did they originate? Who's Moses, now?

-I like how you take verses out of context (typical of an anti-christian shit hole, like you)

Hey, it's God's words. I'm just acting as the purveyor. Got a problem? Take it up with your Almighty.

-Many of those you listed were figurative language.

As are many of the laws cited by modern Christians as being "Concrete Laws" that are unmovable, and supposed to be applicable in a modern context.

Just when the fancy hits 'em, right? Sometimes it's "THE OLD TESTAMENT IS THE WORD OF GOD AND MUST BE APPLIED TO MODERN CODES OF ETHICALITY!" And sometimes, it's "WE ONLY OBEY THE NEW TESTAMENT. OLD TESTAMENT IS A FIGURE OF SPEECH."

WEE! Your stupidity knows no bounds!

Ad Hominem.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/10/07 09:56 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality

You are a idiot , that is the old testament and since Christian's are not Jew's we don't follow it, Get a life or read a book and gain some understanding into a subject you want to dispute.

???? Can you guys just not read? I don't know how many times I've said this: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DO REGARD THE OLD TESTAMENT AS THE TRUE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE CHRISTIANS THAT ONLY FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT. Not all Christians only follow the New Testament. Go listen to Pat Robertson, he's one of those people who quotes Leviticus. Same goes for you Memorize. Try reading all my responses before calling me stupid, people.

[SyntheticTacos]

Kind of funny how my 666th post was a post about the bible -.-

[Memorize]

At 4/10/07 11:28 PM, Bolo wrote:

And yet you quote and cite from the Old Testament as being as much a truth to Christianity as the New Testament. Just when the fancy suits you—then it becomes "not ofiicially part of the faith", eh?

Really. Since when have I quoted the old testament to fit today?

But where did they originate? Who's Moses, now?

Did you not read that?

I said that the reason why I follow those ones are because they are re-stated in the New Testament for people to follow. All except "keep the sabbath holy". Or did you just skip that?

As are many of the laws cited by modern Christians as being "Concrete Laws" that are unmovable, and supposed to be applicable in a modern context.

So, are you going to kill someone and claim "what? Those Biblical laws do not fit modern times!"?

Just when the fancy hits 'em, right? Sometimes it's "THE OLD TESTAMENT IS THE WORD OF GOD AND MUST BE APPLIED TO MODERN CODES OF ETHICALITY!"

Have I said that?

The only time people should use the Old Testament is to read how it leads up to the New.

Hurrah! Stupidity knows no bounds!

[Dre-Man]

I love it at how you nitpick at tiny little verses, manipulate them to your own idiotic understanding, and then call other people hypocrites when they say you're wrong.