NationStates Jolt Archive

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she
said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any
circumstance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US
resident, which was posted on the Internet.
************************************************************************
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 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 uncleanliness (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?

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?

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?

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.

Your adoring fan

Yes, we've all seen that before. They're good points, sort of, but nothing new.

Leviticus was an ass why follow anything he says?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I take the view that if something has been on a TV sit-com/drama its old. I think this has been around for years now.

See, this is why I don't JUST have the bible... too open to interpretation... too many overriding laws...

:D :lol:

not being new is ok - I hadn't seen it before, v funny.

See, this is why I don't JUST have the bible... too open to interpretation... too many overriding laws...

You don't seem to have trouble quoting it when to do so serves to strengthen your argument.

It is either the Word of God, or it is not.

Yea, verily, Thou shalt not cherry pick the parts that dost suit thee, and consign the rest to the fiery pits of hell.

Interesting response to Dr. Laura, a woman who is so beyond God's help it's pitiful.

See, this is why I don't JUST have the bible... too open to interpretation... too many overriding laws...

You don't seem to have trouble quoting it when to do so serves to strengthen your argument.

It is either the Word of God, or it is not.

Yea, verily, Thou shalt not cherry pick the parts that dost suit thee, and consign the rest to the fiery pits of hell.I didn't say I cherry picked... I said I was glad I belong to a religion that doesn't make stuff up where there is nothing, or fill gaps with interpelation, or reinterpret passages out of context to serve a governmental idea.

The catholic church effed up the bible, and every spin-off religion is dwindling in misconception because of them.

See, this is why I don't JUST have the bible... too open to interpretation... too many overriding laws...

You don't seem to have trouble quoting it when to do so serves to strengthen your argument.

It is either the Word of God, or it is not.

Yea, verily, Thou shalt not cherry pick the parts that dost suit thee, and consign the rest to the fiery pits of hell.I didn't say I cherry picked... I said I was glad I belong to a religion that doesn't make stuff up where there is nothing, or fill gaps with interpelation, or reinterpret passages out of context to serve a governmental idea.

The catholic church effed up the bible, and every spin-off religion is dwindling in misconception because of them.

Strange, I thought Mormons loved the Bible so much they added a couple of books.

Strange, I thought Mormons loved the Bible so much they added a couple of books.Shows your blatant ignorance towards Mormonism once again.

See, this is why I don't JUST have the bible... too open to interpretation... too many overriding laws...

You don't seem to have trouble quoting it when to do so serves to strengthen your argument.

It is either the Word of God, or it is not.

Yea, verily, Thou shalt not cherry pick the parts that dost suit thee, and consign the rest to the fiery pits of hell.I didn't say I cherry picked... I said I was glad I belong to a religion that doesn't make stuff up where there is nothing, or fill gaps with interpelation, or reinterpret passages out of context to serve a governmental idea.

The catholic church effed up the bible, and every spin-off religion is dwindling in misconception because of them.

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

why do you think its called CHRISTianity?

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?

why do you think its called CHRISTianity?Because "Christian" was once a duragatory word used to describe the followers of christ, who eventually became known as the catholics, for one reason or another.

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?it is a restoration of the Church Christ set on the earth, that left the earth when the apostles died.

Leviticus needs to get laid

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?it is a restoration of the Church Christ set on the earth, that left the earth when the apostles died.

So it presumes to know what Christ originally intended, more so than the actual Church established by Christ and his apostles?

Knowing next to nothing of the mormon cult is probably a good thing.

Knowing next to nothing of the mormon cult is probably a good thing.

they already own Utah what more could they want?

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?it is a restoration of the Church Christ set on the earth, that left the earth when the apostles died.

So it presumes to know what Christ originally intended, more so than the actual Church established by Christ and his apostles?The catholic church was not started by jesus. The catholic church, as far as I know, was started by peter, the last of the apostles.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was started by Jesus, Peter, James, John, St. John, John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery... do I need to go on? I think we have a little bit better claim of foundation here ^_^

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?it is a restoration of the Church Christ set on the earth, that left the earth when the apostles died.

So it presumes to know what Christ originally intended, more so than the actual Church established by Christ and his apostles?The catholic church was not started by jesus. The catholic church, as far as I know, was started by peter, the last of the apostles.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was started by Jesus, Peter, James, John, St. John, John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery... do I need to go on? I think we have a little bit better claim of foundation here ^_^

Yes, you do need to go on. What proof do you have that the Mormon Church was intended by Jesus Christ?

Knowing next to nothing of the mormon cult is probably a good thing.

they already own Utah what more could they want?We have 17 or 18 people in congress, and numerous leaders in corporations, and, heck, even the governor of massachusettes is a mormon.

You know, you harp on the Catholic Church an awful lot for a member of a religion that is derived from Catholicism.Actually, Mormonism is one of the few "Christian" religions that is NOT derived from catholocism.... thus the basis for the argument that we are not "Christians," simply because Christianity is synonymous with the medieval roman church and it's spinoffs.

Is it derivative of Orthodoxy then?it is a restoration of the Church Christ set on the earth, that left the earth when the apostles died.

So it presumes to know what Christ originally intended, more so than the actual Church established by Christ and his apostles?The catholic church was not started by jesus. The catholic church, as far as I know, was started by peter, the last of the apostles.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was started by Jesus, Peter, James, John, St. John, John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery... do I need to go on? I think we have a little bit better claim of foundation here ^_^

Yes, you do need to go on. What proof do you have that the Mormon Church was intended by Jesus Christ?What proof do you have that the Catholic church was?

Knowing next to nothing of the mormon cult is probably a good thing.

they already own Utah what more could they want?

I recommend fire and brimstone.

What proof do you have that the Catholic church was?

Well, it certainly has more of a historical backing than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in your attacks on the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Alot of people doubt the legitimacy of your faith.

What proof do you have that the Catholic church was?

Well, it certainly has more of a historical backing than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in your attacks on the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Alot of people doubt the legitimacy of your faith.LOL Of course.

But I just have some beef against the catholic church... what, with a couple thousand years of slavery, witch trials, and burnings at the stake.. and more recently with the 1 in 20 catholic leaders being a known child molestor... nothing about that church screams "God's church"

What proof do you have that the Catholic church was?

Well, it certainly has more of a historical backing than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in your attacks on the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Alot of people doubt the legitimacy of your faith.LOL Of course.

But I just have some beef against the catholic church... what, with a couple thousand years of slavery, witch trials, and burnings at the stake.. and more recently with the 1 in 20 catholic leaders being a known child molestor... nothing about that church screams "God's church"

Actually, the number of known child molesters is infinitely lower than 1 in 20. You're just hearing about them all at once, so it feels like alot more. But I'm not defending Cardinal "Above the" Law. I actually belong to his archdiocese (well, former archdiocese), so I know full well what's going on and I support none of it. He gives good Catholics a bad name.

What proof do you have that the Catholic church was?

Well, it certainly has more of a historical backing than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in your attacks on the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Alot of people doubt the legitimacy of your faith.LOL Of course.

But I just have some beef against the catholic church... what, with a couple thousand years of slavery, witch trials, and burnings at the stake.. and more recently with the 1 in 20 catholic leaders being a known child molestor... nothing about that church screams "God's church"

Actually, the number of known child molesters is infinitely lower than 1 in 20. You're just hearing about them all at once, so it feels like alot more. But I'm not defending Cardinal "Above the" Law. I actually belong to his archdiocese (well, former archdiocese), so I know full well what's going on and I support none of it. He gives good Catholics a bad name.anything over 1 in 1000 is completely unacceptable, and a true sign of corruption

since this has become a topic about mormonism, i shall interject.

i do not agree with mormonism at all, but i do respect freedom of/from religion, and i do know a little about it (though not too much). the Mormons do believe that they are the Church established by Jesus of nazareth himself. that is a claim that can't be proven or disproven. no one today knows what Rabbi Jeshua had in mind. His words have been turned, twisted, and mistranslated through the ages to suit various needs. originally, there were 22 or more known gospels, but the catholic church dispensed of all but four, and later the protestants dispensed 5 more (First and Second Macabees come readily to mind, i don't remember the rest off the top of my head). then people go and get upset at the Mormons for adding 5 books back (which they didn't even put in the Bible, they put them in a seperate book), claiming that the Bible is divinely inspired and that to add or edit or remove is irreverent and heretical and blah de blah de blah.

mormons (the ones i have met anyway) tend to be nice people. the only problem i ever had with mormon friends and aquantances was that they tended to try to convert me at every opportunity, and the cannon of mormonism (which i forget the name of) calls homosexuality a sin second only to murder. but overall, they tend to be very passive about all this, so it's okay. even the constant conversion attempts were very benign, which is how it should be. plus, i got a free Book of Mormon out of it, so that's fine by me.

before people start to make fun of other religions, please make fun of your own.

to quote the ever-famous voltaire: "I do not agree with a word you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." change word/say to belief/believe, and that's my message to Raysia.

except for the bit about child-molesting priests. that's just nasty. i agree with Raysia on that.

to quote another Voltaire:

God thinks all blacks are obsolete farm eqipment
God thinks the Jews killed his son and must be punished
God thinks the white man is Satan
God, they know what God thinks

God thinks we should all convert to Judaism
God thinks we must all be Christians and
God thinks we should all embrace Islam
God thinks the only true religion is Hinduism

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're a waste of flesh
God prefers an Atheist

God thinks all people like you are evil
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own protection

God thinks the sun revolves around the Earth
God thinks there was something very wrong with Copernicus
God thinks abortion is murder and
God thinks everything that science gave us is wrong
God thinks women deserve it
God thinks AIDS is a form of punishment

I hate people who blame the Devil for their own shortcomings and
I hate people who thank God when things go right

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're an idiot
God prefers a heretic

God God
God thinks all people like you are evil
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own agenda

God is a liberal
God is a democrat
God wants you to vote republican
never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god
and says that it's absolute truth
its lies and it smells like death
its all in a day's work taking money from the poor
Why do you think that God would need your dirty money
if he wanted to start a holy war?

self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own protection

God thinks puppies need to die and
God thinks babies need to drown
'cause God is neither good nor bad
God is you and me
God is Everything

[EDIT: omission on the priest molestation thing]

Join the Church of Myrth! It was founded by me n Jesus.
I have no proof, but I reckon I can write something better than the Book of Mormon!

Join the Church of Myrth! It was founded by me n Jesus.
I have no proof, but I reckon I can write something better than the Book of Mormon!
Tempting, but I'll stick with worshipping the Mods. After all, I've seen their power.... :wink:

and it can be proven that they exist ALL HAIL THE MODS!

and it can be proven that they exist ALL HAIL THE MODS!

Heathen!!!

The almighty Silly Mountain Walks was deleted by the evil Mods, yet rose again.

All hail Silly Mountain Walks!!

Crikey.

note that it was the mods that both killed and ressurected mountain

Going back to the original post...

I posted this once on another message board, and was suitably chastised by an Orthodox Jew who pointed out that shellfish is still forbidden and that they will avoid physical contact with an unrelated woman at all times just in case.

Leviticus is a tired argument by both sides.

For atheists / agnostics using Leviticus as an argument, to point at the hypocrisy of "cherry picking" the Bible are doing exactly the same thing. Context needs to be remembered. Leveticus was written thousands of years ago. Jesus swept away the old laws.

For Christians who use Leviticus to condeem homosexuality they are ignoring the fact that Jesus swept away the old laws. They are also clinging to laws which were relevent thousand of years ago. Applying a 21st century mindset to a different time period is stupid. We can't judge ancient Judea by our modern standards.

If God is omnipotent why do some Christians believe that She wants us to eternally live in the societal mindset of 2600 BC or thereabouts?

roma moon: voltaire relly said that? THE Voltaire?

just to get back to the topic (sorry about the caps)


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?


IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER HUMAN. CLEARLY THE MEXICANS ARE NOT HUMAN, AS THE WONDERFUL SCIENCE OF EUGENICS HAS PROVEN. THEREFORE THEY CANNOT BE SLAVES, THEY CAN BE PROPERTY THOUGH, KIND OF LIKE GOLDFISH.

CANADIANS CANNOT BE KEPT AS SLAVES BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LIVE SO FAR NORTH, THIS IS BASED ON STALINS SELF-EVIDENT BELIF THAT PEOPLE FROM THE NORTH ARE ALWAYS BETTER (MUST HAVE HAD AN INFERIORITY COMPLEX SINCE HE WAS GEORGIAN)


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?


IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE MARKET, IF THERE ARE A LOT OF GIRLS IN HER CLASS (A TERM SIMILAR TO THE "CLASSES" USED FOR CARS) THEN SHE'LL BE CHEAP. IF NOT SHE'LL BE EXPENSIVE, I SUGGEST YOU GO TO A FEW AUCTIONS TO SCOPE OUT THE MARKET


3. 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.

WHY DID YOU ASK? THEY WERE WOMEN AND YOU SHOULDNT BE TALKING TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, GO AND SELF FLAGELATE (NOT; SELF FLAGELATE YOURSELF, THAT WOULD BE STUPID)


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?

THEY ARE CLEARLY DEVIL WORSHIPERS, AND YES

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?

I SUGGEST YOU TELL THE KRYPTERIA (spartan death squads) AND LET THEM DEAL WITH 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?

NO, ALL MUST DIE... DUH

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?

THATS JUST BEING SILLY, THERE IS NO ALTAR, COME TO THINK OF IT THE SAME GOES FOR THE ABOVE SACRIFICE, GO AND DROWN YOURSELF TO PURIFY YOUR UNDERSTANDING

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?

THERE HAIR MUST BE ALLOWED TO GROW UNTIL IT IS LONG ENOUGH TO STANGLE THEM WITH, I THINK YOU CAN WORK OUT THE REST

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?

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER USING A LIVE PIG THE NEXT TIME YOU PLAY

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)

NO

harken to these words for i speak with the spirit of god, or the devil, it just gets so confusing when they start shouting at me like that that i can never be sure

Context needs to be remembered. Leveticus was written thousands of years ago. Jesus swept away the old laws.


Exactly...I have been a Christian for almost four months now and I've quickly come to accept that a lot of the old testament is rather confusing at times, what we must remember though is that through Moses and various others God laid down his laws, he taught the people of the time how they should be living, he demanded their respect and punished them when they turned away from Him. But our God is a loving God and with the birth of Jesus Christ he found an alternative, a way to make us free, a way to save us all from the eternal punishment we undoubtedly deserve. Through the greatest sacrifice known to Man he gave his only Son that we may be saved, Jesus, God in Human Form, took the punishment for every single one of us. He was the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer have to offer burnt sacrifices at the altar, we don't have the authority, or the need to kill others for their sins, because the price for our sins has already been paid. I read somewhere a good analogy, think of God as a judge in a high court, he opens the day with a fresh case and who should be the defendent but his closest friend, lets go further and say his wife. She has committed some crime or other. The judge is totally just, he is completely fair and has no double-standards. He passes his sentence, a huge fine that she just wouldn't be able to afford, but that's justice for you, anyone else in that position would recieve the same sentencing so so must she. In the evening when the day's work is done he removes his judicial robes, and writes a cheque to cover the full amount. In the same way God has judged us all fairly, we are all deserving of a punishment we can't possibly hope to endure, but he's wiped our slates clean and paid it all off.
Right, I'm getting carried away, I feel as though I'm preaching here and having only been a Christian for a short while I'm probably not really in a position to do that, I'm only telling you here what I've come to understand and believe..but the point I'm making is that Jesus' birth, death and resurrection removed the need for many of the rituals that appear in the OT.

An interesting analogy with the Judge... not sure if I agree with it, but I'm not Biblical scholar or thelogian.

My take on it is that the old laws weren't set in stone... Oh wait, they literally were but you know what I mean. Religion is a living breathing thing. The Christians who want us to live our lives as the ancient Isrealites did, really should give up their TVs, computers, nice house and go wonder the desert until they learn a little humility and tolerance.

Religion is a living breathing thing. The Christians who want us to live our lives as the ancient Isrealites did, really should give up their TVs, computers, nice house and go wander the desert until they learn a little humility and tolerance.

So true, things change with time, that's the way of the world, the only thing we can be sure of is God's enduring Love

mormons (the ones i have met anyway) tend to be nice people. the only problem i ever had with mormon friends and aquantances was that they tended to try to convert me at every opportunity, and the cannon of mormonism (which i forget the name of) calls homosexuality a sin second only to murder. but overall, they tend to be very passive about all this, so it's okay. even the constant conversion attempts were very benign, which is how it should be. plus, i got a free Book of Mormon out of it, so that's fine by me.

You've obviously never lived in Salt Lake City, where someone who is not a Mormon (female at least) practically cannot get a job. Very passive indeed.

Boo, these topics get on my nerves.

I just got one thing to say to raysia (if I'm not mistaken is the mormon in question?) bashing the Catholic Faith for it's history. Three words..Mountain Meadows Massacre...sound familiar in a point in Mormon history?

Let's be honest here... the Mormons are pretty much the newest religion there is. Joseph Smith founded his new religion in only 1831 after he published the book of Mormon. Much like David Koresh he was very charismatic and was considered a gifted speaker. This is how he got his followers... they didn't pay much attention apparently to his claims, the whole religion was based on his finding "plates" and translating them, of course apparently god told him not to lose the plates and the first thing he does is, you guessed it, lose the plates..lol

It's about spin folks.. you can take just about any thing and spin it. That is why you can't count on any religion to be accurate, because over the ages there have been so many people who have put their own spin on it such as Joesph Smith, you can't tell what was meant to be in the damn thing and what wasn't. Joesph Smith wasn't the first person in history to play with that book.. and my guess is , he won't be the last..;)

Let's be honest here... the Mormons are pretty much the newest religion there is. Joseph Smith founded his new religion in only 1831 after he published the book of Mormon. Much like David Koresh he was very charismatic and was considered a gifted speaker. This is how he got his followers... they didn't pay much attention apparently to his claims, the whole religion was based on his finding "plates" and translating them, of course apparently god told him not to lose the plates and the first thing he does is, you guessed it, lose the plates..lol

It's about spin folks.. you can take just about any thing and spin it. That is why you can't count on any religion to be accurate, because over the ages there have been so many people who have put their own spin on it such as Joesph Smith, you can't tell what was meant to be in the damn thing and what wasn't. Joesph Smith wasn't the first person in history to play with that book.. and my guess is , he won't be the last..;)

Steph will back me up on the Church of Myrth thing! She's my messiah, you know.

Stephistan: Of course, that is your own, personal, if not biased-as-always opinion... and should not be treated as any more valid than what Mormonism's 11 million followers believe.

It speaks clearly but opinionated.

Since someone decided to post the "Dr." Laura letter, I've posted the response which was floated across the internet. Source is http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.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.

Stephistan: Of course, that is your own, personal, if not biased-as-always opinion... and should not be treated as any more valid than what Mormonism's 11 million followers believe.

Actually, not true, you see I'm only willing to deal in facts, where as you are dealing with faith and unproven concepts that you wish us to believe. Therefore the onus would fall upon you, not me. Therefore my argument (yes opinionated) however, more valid.

Stephistan: Of course, that is your own, personal, if not biased-as-always opinion... and should not be treated as any more valid than what Mormonism's 11 million followers believe.

Actually, not true, you see I'm only willing to deal in facts, where as you are dealing with faith and unproven concepts that you wish us to believe. Therefore the onus would fall upon you, not me. Therefore my argument (yes opinionated) however, more valid.I didn't say I wish you to believe it... I was simply telling you what I believe, and not giving a crap what you think about what I believe. No one said I ever had to prove what I believe in, that's almost a contradiction of terms.

That's fine that you believe only in facts, that's a solid way to live... it's just not for me.

As Ben Franklin said, "The truth is more important than the facts."

Leviticus is of course jewish law. However this is certainly not the only place that states this. In the New Testament Paul writes to the Romans if any of you care to read Romans chapter 1 verse 21 on you will know what the Bible tells us about homosexuality.

Leviticus is of course jewish law. However this is certainly not the only place that states this. In the New Testament Paul writes to the Romans if any of you care to read Romans chapter 1 verse 21 on you will know what the Bible tells us about homosexuality.Actually, verse 27

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You have a good point there.

Leviticus was about jewish law... some principles apply today, but the law was replaced by the Higher law of Christ in the new testament. Rom. 1:27 is where it is condemned OUTSIDE of jewish law.

Religion sucks. It contradicts itself way, way too much for anyone to believe in it logically.

Religion sucks. It contradicts itself way, way too much for anyone to believe in it logically.Yeah, but not as much as Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Physiology, Medicine, Health, Statistics, Politics, Physics, etc. etc... every field of study has contradictions.

relgion has far more contradictions than science, as science does not claim to know all

relgion has far more contradictions than science, as science does not claim to know allumm... neither does religion, you ignorant fool lol

the notion of god is a part of religion, therefore a part of relgion claims to know all

the notion of god is a part of religion, therefore a part of relgion claims to know allUmm.... wow, that has to be the stupidest statement ever termed "logical"...

Leviticus is of course jewish law. However this is certainly not the only place that states this. In the New Testament Paul writes to the Romans if any of you care to read Romans chapter 1 verse 21 on you will know what the Bible tells us about homosexuality.Actually, verse 27

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You have a good point there.

You're right!! And I had forgotten the place in the Bible where it says Paul = Christ. Wait, wait.... crap, I can't find that verse - could you please point it out to me?

Maybe the fact that Paul was Jewish before he saw Christ might have a little something to do with his views on the subject?

Leviticus is of course jewish law. However this is certainly not the only place that states this. In the New Testament Paul writes to the Romans if any of you care to read Romans chapter 1 verse 21 on you will know what the Bible tells us about homosexuality.Actually, verse 27

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You have a good point there.

You're right!! And I had forgotten the place in the Bible where it says Paul = Christ. Wait, wait.... crap, I can't find that verse - could you please point it out to me?

Maybe the fact that Paul was Jewish before he saw Christ might have a little something to do with his views on the subject?He was an apostle. And not everything Christ ever said was written down in his words... this is why he had apostles, to spread his divine word.

They are apostles... they are prophets, seers, and revelators... whether it come from his mouth or the mouth of his servants, it is the same.

Man, you guys should try reading WHOLE books, instead of verses out of context.

I am going to assume that the basis of this thread is to determine if homosexual behaviors and 'rights' are morally acceptable based upon biblical reference. If this is the case why not reference other religious texts that will also surely support these views since all were written in roughly the same stage of human development for that particular culture.

What puzzles me is why most people believe that gays want to be 'married' for some high and lofty moral/its my right/ideals etc. It is simply an issue of money and benefits which they are quite careful not to mention unless pushed to it. It is so much easier to get people to argue on the more passionate points which have little to do with the real purpose. Amid the smoke and mirrors routine they seek to gain some advantage in the financial and benefit arena that they feel is granted to heterosexual married couples. So if they manage to convice the majority of the people that they are being discriminated against and gain what they want, what then. Why shouldn't same sex room-mates file for marriage even though there is no sexual ties between them. Why should they be denied the same 'spousal' benefits and other legal perks reserved for married couples? Makes sense to me.

Bear in mind that spousal financil benefits and such were orriginally put in place to provide the couple with more disposable income to encourage giving birth to children (that they could support...important point). This would then lead to seeking better housing and all that goes with it which in turn would stimulate the economy and so forth. Oh, I forgot... homosexual couples can now adopt...yippee! Let's not only validate this lifestyle but allow children to be raised thinking it is the norm. That will surely make it more acceptable to future generations.

to the voltaire question:

the "i don't agree..." quote is THE Voltiare (French philospher and all). the other thing is song lyrics by a modern singer who had his name legally changed to Voltaire. he sings gothic folk music, and a lot of his songs are very VERY funny. he makes fun of anything and everything. that song is called God Thinks, and i personally believe that it sums up every debate over religion quite well. you think you know what God thinks, he thinks he knows what God thinks, and the truth is, only God does.

to the topic at hand:

remember that the majority of both Christian, Jewish, Mormon, etc law is based on the concept of seperating themselves from the people opressing them. Leviticus was written during the Babylonian Captivity, and everything the Babylonians did, the Jews made laws against so that they wouldn't mix together and become Jewbylonians or Babybrews. the early Christians did the same with their laws in respect to the Romans.

i do not agree with the idea that a prophet/disciple saying it is as good as the god/savior saying it. God/Messianic figures are incorruptable: they cannot lie or exagerate. Peter, Paul, Judas, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, et al. were all mortal men, therefore could very well have corrupted the words of their Lord and Savior Jesus to suit their own needs. such has been done in many religions many times, notably by King James in his translation of the Bible into English. he basically told his scholars working on it "I don't like that, change it" and "I want grounds to do this, so change this verse so that it gives me a right to do it."

the only way to truly know what god thinks about homosexuality, eating shellfish, and burning bulls on the altar in modern day is to ask Him. and if you do that, and he responds, then not only will i be amazed, but i will be sure to visit you in the psych ward after you tell people what He told you. the reason there are no prophets in modern times is because people who talk to God oftentimes are considered insane ;)

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

Going back to the original post...

For atheists / agnostics using Leviticus as an argument, to point at the hypocrisy of "cherry picking" the Bible are doing exactly the same thing. Context needs to be remembered. Leveticus was written thousands of years ago. Jesus swept away the old laws.

For Christians who use Leviticus to condeem homosexuality they are ignoring the fact that Jesus swept away the old laws. They are also clinging to laws which were relevent thousand of years ago. Applying a 21st century mindset to a different time period is stupid. We can't judge ancient Judea by our modern standards.

If God is omnipotent why do some Christians believe that She wants us to eternally live in the societal mindset of 2600 BC or thereabouts?
Then by this logic, all laws & the books of the bible written before Jesus should be tossed, and a whole new bible written? It's a neat idea, but the only reason the bible carries the weight it does is that it was (mostly) written so long ago. A new one would get no respect.

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

what makes "this book"....wich is supposedly the word of God....
LESS important than THAT book of god?

The arguement is silly.....simply becuase it is choosing which gospel to follow and wich to throw away.

Mormons are usually pretty picky about those as well.

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

what makes "this book"....wich is supposedly the word of God....
LESS important than THAT book of god?

The arguement is silly.....simply becuase it is choosing which gospel to follow and wich to throw away.

Mormons are usually pretty picky about those as well.Wow, you are completely ignorant of anything about christianity outside of what you read in your atheist handbook, aren't you.

Why didn't christ come in the beginning, and make everyone christians, isntead of starting out with jews, and then advancing into chrstianity? Answer that question, and you'll figure out the rest.

Exactly...I have been a Christian for almost four months now and I've quickly come to accept that a lot of the old testament is rather confusing at times, what we must remember though is that through Moses and various others God laid down his laws, he taught the people of the time how they should be living, he demanded their respect and punished them when they turned away from Him. But our God is a loving God and with the birth of Jesus Christ he found an alternative, a way to make us free, a way to save us all from the eternal punishment we undoubtedly deserve. Through the greatest sacrifice known to Man he gave his only Son that we may be saved, Jesus, God in Human Form, took the punishment for every single one of us. He was the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer have to offer burnt sacrifices at the altar, we don't have the authority, or the need to kill others for their sins, because the price for our sins has already been paid. I read somewhere a good analogy, think of God as a judge in a high court, he opens the day with a fresh case and who should be the defendent but his closest friend, lets go further and say his wife. She has committed some crime or other. The judge is totally just, he is completely fair and has no double-standards. He passes his sentence, a huge fine that she just wouldn't be able to afford, but that's justice for you, anyone else in that position would recieve the same sentencing so so must she. In the evening when the day's work is done he removes his judicial robes, and writes a cheque to cover the full amount. In the same way God has judged us all fairly, we are all deserving of a punishment we can't possibly hope to endure, but he's wiped our slates clean and paid it all off.
Right, I'm getting carried away, I feel as though I'm preaching here and having only been a Christian for a short while I'm probably not really in a position to do that, I'm only telling you here what I've come to understand and believe..but the point I'm making is that Jesus' birth, death and resurrection removed the need for many of the rituals that appear in the OT.
I just can't buy this logic. Try this one: Christianity says God made us. since he made us, and we all sin, that is a flaw he built into us. In short, IT IS HIS FAULT, not ours. You wouldn't build a bunch of houses, then write a building code that condemns then all as sub-standard, then try to blame the houses, would you? They were made that way, they can't possibly be to blame. Yet the "died for our sins" logic tries to do exactly that: blame us for being as God made us...

I just can't buy this logic. Try this one: Christianity says God made us. since he made us, and we all sin, that is a flaw he built into us. In short, IT IS HIS FAULT, not ours. You wouldn't build a bunch of houses, then write a building code that condemns then all as sub-standard, then try to blame the houses, would you? They were made that way, they can't possibly be to blame. Yet the "died for our sins" logic tries to do exactly that: blame us for being as God made us...We are not permanent structures. We are evolving beings. The PC was not created flawless, it was created through trial, gradually increasing in speed and power and understanding until it becomes perfect, which of course, it is not right now, but is certainly growing.

Nothing is perfect to start... everything grows. If everything were created perfect, then life would be pointless.

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

what makes "this book"....wich is supposedly the word of God....
LESS important than THAT book of god?

The arguement is silly.....simply becuase it is choosing which gospel to follow and wich to throw away.

Mormons are usually pretty picky about those as well.Wow, you are completely ignorant of anything about christianity outside of what you read in your atheist handbook, aren't you.

Why didn't christ come in the beginning, and make everyone christians, isntead of starting out with jews, and then advancing into chrstianity? Answer that question, and you'll figure out the rest.

You dont find the ignoring of one peticular set of rules..and following others just SLIGHTLY hippocritical?
Of course you dont....

You dont find ANYTHING hippocritical when it goes along withyour tiny
little world and its backwards values.

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

what makes "this book"....wich is supposedly the word of God....
LESS important than THAT book of god?

The arguement is silly.....simply becuase it is choosing which gospel to follow and wich to throw away.

Mormons are usually pretty picky about those as well.Wow, you are completely ignorant of anything about christianity outside of what you read in your atheist handbook, aren't you.

Why didn't christ come in the beginning, and make everyone christians, isntead of starting out with jews, and then advancing into chrstianity? Answer that question, and you'll figure out the rest.

You dont find the ignoring of one peticular set of rules..and following others just SLIGHTLY hippocritical?
Of course you dont....

You dont find ANYTHING hippocritical when it goes along withyour tiny
little world and its backwards values.you aren't listening to a blasted thing I am saying, are you...

screw this

Religion sucks. It contradicts itself way, way too much for anyone to believe in it logically.Yeah, but not as much as Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Physiology, Medicine, Health, Statistics, Politics, Physics, etc. etc... every field of study has contradictions.
Of course, one reason you think those fields have contradictions is because the "rules" of a science are written & debated by many scientists. The knowledge is not perfect, thus there is room for much disagreement. Any one scientist tends to minimize contradictions in his own statements, but you will see contradictory statements from other scientist, until eventually, there is a consensus. That's part of how science works, and it's a good thing. Even then, you may see the occaisional disagreement on something that seems settled.

While that was a humorous way to quote the old testament you have to realize that the old testament is the old covenant.. when Jesus came there became a new testament or a new covenant.... Jesus abolished the old covenant when He died for our sins, I realize some Jews don't see it that way, but if you actually read the Bible you'll figure it out.

What puzzles me is why most people believe that gays want to be 'married' for some high and lofty moral/its my right/ideals etc. It is simply an issue of money and benefits which they are quite careful not to mention unless pushed to it. It is so much easier to get people to argue on the more passionate points which have little to do with the real purpose. Amid the smoke and mirrors routine they seek to gain some advantage in the financial and benefit arena that they feel is granted to heterosexual married couples. So if they manage to convice the majority of the people that they are being discriminated against and gain what they want, what then. Why shouldn't same sex room-mates file for marriage even though there is no sexual ties between them. Why should they be denied the same 'spousal' benefits and other legal perks reserved for married couples? Makes sense to me.

Bear in mind that spousal financil benefits and such were orriginally put in place to provide the couple with more disposable income to encourage giving birth to children (that they could support...important point). This would then lead to seeking better housing and all that goes with it which in turn would stimulate the economy and so forth.
So, the financial benefits being a major reason for heterosexual couples to marry is OK, but the same for homosexual couples is not? On the other hand, a couple automatically has more resources to raise kids. While one works full time, the other takes care of kids & keeps the house (clean, buy groceries, etc.). Two or more together can live more cheaply than one alone (food, electric, & phone bills, etc.). And frankly, we don't NEED to encourage people to have kids. If anything, we should DIScourage it in the face of the impending oiil crash!
Oh, I forgot... homosexual couples can now adopt...yippee! Let's not only validate this lifestyle but allow children to be raised thinking it is the norm. That will surely make it more acceptable to future generations.
If familyhood were limited based on "normality", how many could have families? My sister has married 4(!) men who were drunks/spouse abusers. Is that what kids should be raised to see as the norm? About 1/2 of families today are single-parent. Should those people be allowed to raise their children in that "norm"?

If you start into that argument, most of the human race would need to be sterilized, "to protect future generations".

oops, double post...

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.

Actually, what is silly is you trying to pick apart my arguement when it is obvious that you don't know anything about it. I suggest that before you make yourself look foolish again, that you might want to consider reading the Bible, and perhaps learn the differences between the Old and New Testiments.

I just can't buy this logic. Try this one: Christianity says God made us. since he made us, and we all sin, that is a flaw he built into us. In short, IT IS HIS FAULT, not ours. You wouldn't build a bunch of houses, then write a building code that condemns then all as sub-standard, then try to blame the houses, would you? They were made that way, they can't possibly be to blame. Yet the "died for our sins" logic tries to do exactly that: blame us for being as God made us...We are not permanent structures. We are evolving beings. The PC was not created flawless, it was created through trial, gradually increasing in speed and power and understanding until it becomes perfect, which of course, it is not right now, but is certainly growing.

Nothing is perfect to start... everything grows. If everything were created perfect, then life would be pointless.
If we are becoming more perfect, I see no sign of it. I can't count the number of times I have heard that all humans are imperfect & sin, because only the divine is perfect. So, it still remains that any imperfections are part of us, built in. Just as you can't blame me for hazing hazel eyes, you can't blame me for being imperfect. And neither can God, especially as he made me imperfect (not belief in God on my part, just part of the logical argument).

The statement that was made regarding marital perks was done so to provide the reason such laws/actions were originally made. Perhaps such perks are no longer necessary. Bottom line is that you can gain more support and talk on an issue that has moral/religious/emotional tags to it than one that expresses the baser reasons which can be much less interesting and much less likely to gain you much sympathy.

I sure as heck would not want to have to define 'normal' and I am sure most other people would not want me to either. All I am saying is that non hetero marriage is simply not just an issue of morality as it has been generally viewed.

Discouraging people to NOT have babies would more than likely keep those people best suited to have them from doing so. It is typically the most responsible and moralistic among us that is considerate and law abiding. (In case you are wondering I do not place myself within that grouping so lower the flamethrower).

Overall it would also be nice if only one parent had to work outside the home. That again is another issue entirely.

marriage used to be about strengthening ties between two families and producing heirs to said families' estates. that isn't the case anymore. when it was, gay marriage wasn't even a consideration, because no heir could be produced. by the same token, people who were known the be infertile, such as elderly widows, children too young to reproduce, and women with severe uteran problems (even two or three hundred years ago they could tell when something was wrong with that) were disallowed from marrying. now, marriage is about love. if people insist on banning gay marriage because marriage is about having children, then you also need to disallow sterile people from having kids.

The entire world should be secular.

The entire world should be secular.
what a helpful post..like to give us your reasons why the entire world should be secular?

how many times is this going to go around....

OLD TESTIMENT LAWS ARE DIFFERENT THAT NEW TESTIMENT LAWS. As Christians today we are under NEW TESTIMENT laws.

Ofcourse if you were a Christians you would, or at the ver least SHOULD already know that....

Yes..
Becuase THESE "words of god" are better than THOSE words of god.

Your arguement is silly.No, because the Higher law replaces the law of Moses.

For pete's sake, read the bible, before you bash the bible.

what makes "this book"....wich is supposedly the word of God....
LESS important than THAT book of god?

The arguement is silly.....simply becuase it is choosing which gospel to follow and wich to throw away.

Mormons are usually pretty picky about those as well.Wow, you are completely ignorant of anything about christianity outside of what you read in your atheist handbook, aren't you.

Listen, you're the sheep mindlessly following some spooky incompetent father figure that doesn't exist.. I wouldn't be calling any one else "ignorant" if I was you.

This topic is getting on my nerves.

the notion of god is a part of religion, therefore a part of relgion claims to know all

Oh dear.

A notion cannot claim anything. People sometimes claim things based on notions though.

Listen, you're the sheep mindlessly following some spooky incompetent father figure that doesn't exist.. I wouldn't be calling any one else "ignorant" if I was you.

:shock: Whoa, Steph. I disagree with Raysia's views too, but that was a bit much. Your assessment of Raysia may be correct, but it is still offensive. You sounded like Cartese there for a minute. What happened to the loveable reasonable Steph I've come to respect?

The accuracy of Raysia's assessment of Backwoods Squatches' knowledge of Christianity is not necessarily invalidated by his own ignorance anyway. Though it might be invalidated by other means.

Listen, you're the sheep mindlessly following some spooky incompetent father figure that doesn't exist.. I wouldn't be calling any one else "ignorant" if I was you.

:shock: Whoa, Steph. I disagree with Raysia's views too, but that was a bit much. Your assessment of Raysia may be correct, but it is still offensive. You sounded like Cartese there for a minute. What happened to the loveable reasonable Steph I've come to respect?

The accuracy of Raysia's assessment of Backwoods Squatches' knowledge of Christianity is not necessarily invalidated by his own ignorance anyway. Though it might be invalidated by other means.

Yeah, sorry, I guess that was a little harsh. I just get sick and tired of Raysia telling people they're "ignorant" among other names when they don't agree with him. I suppose I should just put him on warning for all the times he insults people and DEAT him if he keeps it up.

However, yeah, I'm sorry.. it was a little harsh.

Listen, you're the sheep mindlessly following some spooky incompetent father figure that doesn't exist.. I wouldn't be calling any one else "ignorant" if I was you.

:shock: Whoa, Steph. I disagree with Raysia's views too, but that was a bit much. Your assessment of Raysia may be correct, but it is still offensive. You sounded like Cartese there for a minute. What happened to the loveable reasonable Steph I've come to respect?

The accuracy of Raysia's assessment of Backwoods Squatches' knowledge of Christianity is not necessarily invalidated by his own ignorance anyway. Though it might be invalidated by other means.

Yeah, sorry, I guess that was a little harsh. I just get sick and tired of Raysia telling people they're "ignorant" among other names when they don't agree with him. I suppose I should just put him on warning for all the times he insults people and DEAT him if he keeps it up.

However, yeah, I'm sorry.. it was a little harsh.

You don't need to apologize to me, but I do very much appreciate you taking my comment seriously and responding kindly.

Go ahead and warn him if you think he deserves it. You're the Modacious Mod, you can do that. :D

He was an apostle. And not everything Christ ever said was written down in his words... this is why he had apostles, to spread his divine word.

Yes, but the apostles were men, and tus fallible. This means that there is a chance that they got something wrong. In fact, it is absolutely certain. Otherwise, we must believe that Christ was born twice, under the rule of different kings.

They are apostles... they are prophets, seers, and revelators... whether it come from his mouth or the mouth of his servants, it is the same.

If God is infallible, which I would assume you believe, then God cannot be wrong by definition. If you have actually read the Bible, you will realize that there are four options here.
(1) God is infallible and the people who wrote the Bible got some things wrong.
(2) God is fallible and occasionally figures out that a previous decision is wrong and changes it (kind of hard since God is supposed to exist outside of time, but we'll ignore that)
(3) God is a trickster who knows what is right and wrong, but likes to fool us every now and then
(4) God thinks atrocities like slavery are fine and thinks if a woman gets raped inside the town and no one saves her, she deserved it and should be stoned.

And don't give me that "The new law vs. the old law" crap because anything not explicitly changed in the NT is supposed to remain the same. Personally, I'm going with option #1, how about you?

Man, you guys should try reading WHOLE books, instead of verses out of context.

Maybe *you* should.

He was an apostle. And not everything Christ ever said was written down in his words... this is why he had apostles, to spread his divine word.

Yes, but the apostles were men, and tus fallible. This means that there is a chance that they got something wrong. In fact, it is absolutely certain. Otherwise, we must believe that Christ was born twice, under the rule of different kings.

They are apostles... they are prophets, seers, and revelators... whether it come from his mouth or the mouth of his servants, it is the same.

If God is infallible, which I would assume you believe, then God cannot be wrong by definition. If you have actually read the Bible, you will realize that there are four options here.
(1) God is infallible and the people who wrote the Bible got some things wrong.
(2) God is fallible and occasionally figures out that a previous decision is wrong and changes it (kind of hard since God is supposed to exist outside of time, but we'll ignore that)
(3) God is a trickster who knows what is right and wrong, but likes to fool us every now and then
(4) God thinks atrocities like slavery are fine and thinks if a woman gets raped inside the town and no one saves her, she deserved it and should be stoned.

And don't give me that "The new law vs. the old law" crap because anything not explicitly changed in the NT is supposed to remain the same. Personally, I'm going with option #1, how about you?

Man, you guys should try reading WHOLE books, instead of verses out of context.

Maybe *you* should.

I've seen this before. Still, it brings up some interesting points.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg