SJ Bills backer Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Have fun with this one, folks! One more not so subtle reminder NOT to take the Bible literally... Dear President Bush: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." 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 them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are 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? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? (NB - I would vote YES here - I love the smell of charred animal flesh in the morning! Smells like... STEAK!) 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? (NB - what about homosexuals EATING shellfish - or heaven forbid - a sea cucumber!) 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 sounds like someone needs to do a Google search on Dispensational Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Have fun with this one, folks!One more not so subtle reminder NOT to take the Bible literally... Dear President Bush: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." 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 them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are 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? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? (NB - I would vote YES here - I love the smell of charred animal flesh in the morning! Smells like... STEAK!) 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? (NB - what about homosexuals EATING shellfish - or heaven forbid - a sea cucumber!) 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. 112088[/snapback] That is by far the best post on TBD since the NJSue thread///although i like Sue....my god i'm still chuckling....come on all you conservative...bible school is in session...tear him apart...like you do every person that does not INTERPRET the bible your way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 sounds like someone needs to do a Google search on Dispensational Truth. 112094[/snapback] i did do a search...thats was hilarious too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant. Now you could argue that the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality should be thrown out too, except there are also instances in the New Testament where homosexuality is condemned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Kinda reminds me of the old Chris Rock bit about religions banning eating meat and why it was done. "Now...a pork chop is your best friend. But 2,000 years ago, a pork chop might kill ya!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Those were originally directed at Laura Schlessinger. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp IMO, the problem with wielding The Bible as if it was a weapon to condemn homosexuality (and other "immoral" acts) is the whole "lest ye be judged" thingy. It may or may not be a sin, but it is not man's place to stand in judgment of another in such matters. Live and let live. When it's all said and done God will make His final judgment, whatever that may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Those were originally directed at Laura Schlessinger. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp IMO, the problem with wielding The Bible as if it was a weapon to condemn homosexuality (and other "immoral" acts) is the whole "lest ye be judged" thingy. It may or may not be a sin, but it is not man's place to stand in judgment of another in such matters. Live and let live. When it's all said and done God will make His final judgment, whatever that may be. 112205[/snapback] It's not really a question of judging homosexuals. It's not like Bush wants to have them all excecuted. He simply wants to keep marriage a sacred bond between man and woman. Gay people can go on being gay if they'd like, Bush isn't arguing that. It would be different if bush made homosexuality an offense punishable by death, but he isn't doing that. What he is doing is only concerned with the institution of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 It's not really a question of judging homosexuals. It's not like Bush wants to have them all excecuted. He simply wants to keep marriage a sacred bond between man and woman. Gay people can go on being gay if they'd like, Bush isn't arguing that. It would be wrong for bush to make homosexuality illegal, but he isn't doing that. What he is doing is only concerned with the institution of marriage. 112206[/snapback] Good points. If it's not illegal to engage in homosexual acts, how can anyone deny two adults who have made a serious committment to each other the same rights and priviledges extended to those of a married heterosexual couple? I consider my marriage to be a covenant made between my wife, God, and me. By having having made that covenant, I have health insurance through her work. If something should happen to me, she can authorize physicians to patch me up. Why shouldn't two committed adults be able to enter into a similar covenant? Because they're homosexual? Is that not discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Good points. If it's not illegal to engage in homosexual acts, how can anyone deny two adults who have made a serious committment to each other the same rights and priviledges extended to those of a married heterosexual couple? I consider my marriage to be a covenant made between my wife, God, and me. By having having made that covenant, I have health insurance through her work. If something should happen to me, she can authorize physicians to patch me up. Why shouldn't two committed adults be able to enter into a similar covenant? Because they're homosexual? Is that not discrimination? 112211[/snapback] Good point, but if homosexuals are allowed to be married, where does one draw the line? Some people may find polygamy to be just fine. Should we discriminate against 3 consenting adults if they want to get married? Who are we to judge their lifestyle as immoral? Exactly where does it end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 It's not really a question of judging homosexuals. It's not like Bush wants to have them all excecuted. He simply wants to keep marriage a sacred bond between man and woman. Gay people can go on being gay if they'd like, Bush isn't arguing that. It would be different if bush made homosexuality an offense punishable by death, but he isn't doing that. What he is doing is only concerned with the institution of marriage. 112206[/snapback] From Webster's 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage Now please share with me what your parents told you that a good should marriage be .. ..the values of a good marriage...well I'd say love, commitment, trust, a bond...well why can't a woman/woman or man/man have those same values in what tthey feel a union of two people should be. But we all know from PPP that homosexuals cannot have a faith in God. So lets amended our nation's constitution (GW's amendment regarding marriage) based on what the bible says....yes, our forefathers built this nation on religion. But now you'll argue that all men are NOT created equal, that all men are NOT entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find in general that born again Christians are the quickest to label and show little tolerance for fellow Americans.....Gays, Jews, Blacks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 From Webster's1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage Now please share with me what your parents told you that a good should marriage be .. ..the values of a good marriage...well I'd say love, commitment, trust, a bond...well why can't a woman/woman or man/man have those same values in what tthey feel a union of two people should be. But we all know from PPP that homosexuals cannot have a faith in God. So lets amended our nation's constitution (GW's amendment regarding marriage) based on what the bible says....yes, our forefathers built this nation on religion. But now you'll argue that all men are NOT created equal, that all men are NOT entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find in general that born again Christians are the quickest to label and show little tolerance for fellow Americans.....Gays, Jews, Blacks.... 112223[/snapback] But what if being married to 3 people makes a man happy? Should we deny him that right? This is America isn't it? I also didn't know we went to Webster to find the answers to all of life's questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 It's not really a question of judging homosexuals. It's not like Bush wants to have them all excecuted. He simply wants to keep marriage a sacred bond between man and woman. Gay people can go on being gay if they'd like, Bush isn't arguing that. It would be different if bush made homosexuality an offense punishable by death, but he isn't doing that. What he is doing is only concerned with the institution of marriage. 112206[/snapback] No, you are right, Bush is not pushing to to make homsexuality punishable by death, he is just doing his little part to keep one group of people in our society (and they aren't going away people, even though Bush would like it) stigmatized. It would seem that institutionalizing prjeudice and sexual discrimination would be the last concern for the president of the United States, particularly one with a "mandate." Why the f**ck should we care if two gay people want to be married? I have yet to hear a logical (ie: not ideological) answer to this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Good point, but if homosexuals are allowed to be married, where does one draw the line? Some people may find polygamy to be just fine. Should we discriminate against 3 consenting adults if they want to get married? Who are we to judge their lifestyle as immoral? Exactly where does it end? 112222[/snapback] It may sound hypocritical, but I don't like polygamy, unless it's (insert off color joke here). While I'm not suggesting the convenant between two people and God be should be made irrelevant, I am suggesting that it seems discriminatory to not extend it to homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 But what if being married to 3 people makes a man happy? Should we deny him that right? This is America isn't it? I also didn't know we went to Webster to find the answers to all of life's questions. 112230[/snapback] Well if webster states marriage as the union of the same sex who are we to argue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ Bills backer Posted November 11, 2004 Author Share Posted November 11, 2004 Some interesting commentary here and I'm impressed by the intelligence and thought that went into many of the posts. Thanks for your views and some of you were correct in that this is a bit of extrapolation from Bush's views on religion and their application to US policy. Still, there's some rather obvious dangers in a govt which ties policies too closely to moral values of particular religion of choice. I would hope that we in the US can avoid some of these errors. Abortion and marriage rights are two such issues that we'll return to again and again over the next few years. And like the subject of paying college athletes, there are two sides here but they are VERY polarized and there appears to be very little middle ground OR a high chance of success in getting people to change their opinions here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks. 112245[/snapback] Ask and you shall recieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks. 112245[/snapback] "Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinnersin the eyes of God and the bible," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 i did do a search...thats was hilarious too.... 112158[/snapback] and this might have been the most all time none response to a post in TSW history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts