Final proof, that not even fundamentalists take the Bible seriously.

[DetlefK]

You surely have heard of Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both have committed abomination and shall be put to death.

My question is:
If execution is the proper, god-given reaction to this situation, why has nobody ever proposed it when a priest lay with a boy?
Why has no single member of the Vatican called for their death?
Why has no other Christian called for their death?
The Bible clearly states what is supposed to be done to right this wrong. And NOBODY cared.

How are we supposed to take them seriously, if they simply except themselves from death-penalties that they claim, others in those very same situations deserve?

[Bluenorthwest]

1. We are supposed to excecute those who eat pork, pulled or otherwise. According to the

Bible that is. Also cheeseburgers. Blended fabrics. Certain haircuts. Heterosexual intercourse under many circumstances. Slavery is ok. Selling your children, just fine. Shrimp cocktail? Death for you.
Anyone who practiced Biblical law, Old or New Testament, would wind up in prison very quickly.

[mysuzuki2]

5. zThere is a wonderful book called The Year of Living Bibically

Where the author tried to live for a year while following the Bible literally. Hilarity ensued!

[elleng]

2. Try this:

[hrmjustin]

3. Execution is not proper!

The bible should not be read literally in my opinion.

[immoderate]

8. If you skip the executions...

What's left?

--imm

[hrmjustin]

9. Leaving us gays alone. I am sorry that was not clear.

[immoderate]

12. OK then, carry on.

And to be clear myself, I was tacitly suggesting that there's no there there. Nothing to interpret. No real information, much less in code.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

13. We all have our opinions on the bible.

[immoderate]

14. Yeah, some of us think it prolifically deals out unjustified executions.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

15. I agree that is why I tend to focus on the NT. Jesus was a much nicer guy.

[immoderate]

17. Well, compared to Yahweh, who isn't?

He is into the "law" though, and wants you to abandon your family. Not my cup of tea.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

18. Christianity is not everyones cup of tea my friend.

[immoderate]

19. And their "documents" don't reflect that.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

20. Our documents don't reflect what?

[immoderate]

21. The bible seems to say that Jesus is universal.

But as you say, he's not for everybody.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

22. I said Christianity is not everyones cup of tea. Jesus is for everyone.

It is a hard religion to stick with. I try but I fall short all the time.

[immoderate]

23. It's kind of set up to be like that.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

24. Yes Jesus said it would be very hard to follow him.

[exboyfil]

26. Well you do have the God ordered genocide

including the killing of infants. It is sickening to watch a fundamentalist justify this action because he has to hold onto the precious infallibility argument.

As far as shrimp cocktail and such. Remember God is entitled to change his mind (Peter sleeping on the top of the house - Acts 10)

9On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.13A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!”14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.”15Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.


Convenient when you want to evangelize to the Gentiles (who have the cash which the Christina Jews in Jerusalem need).

[Bad Thoughts]

28. However, they tended to skip executions

The application of execution, according to the Talmud, was almost impossible: an admission of guilt and two witnesses, both of whom must be literate and experts in Talmudic, who tried to intervene at the very moment of the commission of the infraction. It even says that the judging panel, Beth Din, which satisfied those conditions, could rightly be suspected of bias. I'll bet many murder suspects currently in American jails would prefer this system.

A system that ascribed death to so many things, yet made it nearly impossible to carry out, may seem contradictory, even hypocritical. I tend to think it was a racket: requiring people to become contrite before legal authorities in order to extract obedience and payment.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Most of the religous against gays woul dnot be bother by that punishment...

but recognize that if they come out and call for all gays to be put to death people would think they are crazy.

So, they just advocate that gays have no rights, and if they can get that through, they will roll it back to a time when it was common to put anyone convicted of non heterosexual sex in jail. Once they get they, they will roll back to stoning people to death.

They are fanatic bigots, not complete idiots

[rug]

6. There are sturdier arguments about Leviticus than conflating the Vatican with fundamentalists.

[Mnemosyne]

7. I heard they were supposed to be stoned.

[struggle4progress]

10. (1) Although the Catholic hierarchy is quite conservative on some matters,

they are actually not fundamentalists; and many fundamentalists rather doubt that Catholics are Christians

(2) Although both Jewish and Christian traditions have preserved the old Hebrew scriptures, most branches of both those traditions do not insist nowadays on absolute and literal adherence to the old Hebrew law. This seems not to be a sudden modern innovation but rather seems to represent a branch of the Judaic tradition that already existed at the beginning of the first millenium CE

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. It's somewhat disingenuous to conflate anti-homosexual bigotry with fundamentalism...

According to Gallup's most recent poll, 48% of Americans oppose gay marriage. With Evangelicals comprising only 28% of the population, I think it fair to conclude to a good number of mainstream, non-fundamentalist Christians still think homosexuality is a sin.

Throwing Leviticus in their faces isn't likely to sway their opinion. But then, neither will it sway the fundamentalists, who think the Law of Moses is applicable only to Jews. They can always justify their position on homosexuality with Romans, and the rather long-standing Christian prohibition on fornication (sex for any reason save reproduction).

[demwing]

16. Final proof! Yay!

So...no more posts about this subject, ever!

Thank God!

[DetlefK]

25. You said Jehovah!!!

[fasttense]

27. Actually Jesus had no problems with gay men

Matthew 8:5-17
As he entered Caper'naum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,' and he goes, and to another, `Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Ever wonder why the rich and powerful centurion general was so hung up over a sick servant? This was Rome where you could get a slave merely by picking up a newborn out of the garbage. That was no servant. In those days, rich Roman generals would leave their families behind and travel with their male lovers. It was common and unremarkable. Surely Jesus understood that the beloved boy (which is the literal translation for the word used in the original text) was the lover of the powerful general. Jesus had no problems with gay men.