Listen up. According to Leviticus in the Bible . . .

[Lex]

According to the book of Leviticus in the Bible, oyster-eating,
crossbreading cattle, shaving a beard, wearing clothing made of mixed
fibers, cursing one's parents, and adultery are just as immoral as
homosexuality. If the "No Special Rights" committee wants to
take one of the 3,000-year-old laws of ritual holiness from Leviticus
and put it into the Bill of Rights in the state constitution, they
should be sincere enough to put all the rest of Leviticus into the
constitution as well. It's a simple matter of respect for these
historic laws to treat them consistently.

We at the Special Rightousness Committee are just as offended by the
oyster-eating, shaving and mixed fibers as the OCA is offended by
homosexuality, and we have just as much right as the OCA does to
change the state constitution to require government discrimination
against people whose behavior we don't like.

My friends, do you want the public schools teaching your children that
shaving is a legitimate and equal alternative style to a normal and
healthy beard? Would you want to be forced to hire an oyster-eater to
direct your church choir? Adam and Eve wore fig leaves--100 percent
fig leaves--and this is divine proof that those disgustingly unnatural
cotton/polyester blends are sinful. And when the OCA was analyzing
the threat to traditional family values, we don't know how they
managed to overlook adultery! Why, there's a lot more adultery than
homosexuality going on out there, and extrapolations from OCA
statistics show that 90 percent of the people who have engaged in
sexual perversions are heterosexual ("straight").

The state condones adultery by not punishing it with death as required
by Leviticus. It promotes oyster-eating by licensing seafood
resturants, and it allows people to take mixed fibers out of the
closet and to flaunt them right out in public without being fired or
evicted! The state is encouraging sin!

If the OCA can have the special right to make their personal moral
agenda into public policy, then anyone else should be able to amend
the state Bill of Rights to eliminate basic human rights for people
who they don't like.

Let's put ALL of Leviticus into the constitution! A "yes" vote is the
first step in facilitating our militant moral agenda.

AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!

Special Righteousness Committee
P.O. Box 1851
Portland, Oregon 97207

[unpossibles]

1. and Eagles! I learned on Jeopardy that Eagles are abominations as well

Why does God hate America so much?

[Kurovski]

3. He has a very stressful job.

Counseling might be in order.

[me b zola]

16. I loved that.

The entire category was dedicated to the ridiculous smiting in Leviticus.

[semillama]

44. Just ask Mojo Nixon about the Eagles. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

54. No they aren't...

...although, as a band, I think they're long past their prime. :evilgrin:

[edwin]

56. Come on, man. I had a rough night and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man!

:rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

62. Welcome to the Hotel AmeriCorp

Such a lovely place.

[bread_and_roses]

63. I do too. But I'm on board with mixed fibres. Abominations! At least, polyester. (n/t)

[Scriptor Ignotus]

78. that's it! out of my cab!

;)

[mikeytherat]

113. It would appear that you do not abide.

mikey_the_rat

[NewJeffCT]

65. Why are eagles an abomination, may I ask?

The link is a blocked site at my work.

[unpossibles]

70. well, technically the verse says to not EAT them

<< Leviticus 11:13 >>

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Here are the kinds of birds you must consider disgusting and must not eat. They are eagles, bearded vultures, black vultures,

King James Bible
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

American Standard Version
And these ye shall have in abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier-eagle, and the ospray,

Bible in Basic English
And among birds these are to be disgusting to you, and not to be used for food: the eagle and the gier-eagle and the ospray;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey,

Darby Bible Translation
And these shall ye have in abomination of the fowls; they shall not be eaten; an abomination shall they be: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the sea-eagle,

English Revised Version
And these ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the gier eagle, and the ospray;

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;

Webster's Bible Translation
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

World English Bible
"'These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,

Young's Literal Translation
And these ye do abominate of the fowl; they are not eaten, an abomination they are: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

[Seabiscuit]

128. Hmmm... so vulture = ossifrage = gier-eagle = griffon = bearded vulture, and

buzzard = black vulture = ospray = osprey = sea-eagle?

Weird, I say. Just plain weird.

[dembotoz]

75. well i hate the eagles too

hotel california and other--such garbage

[Burma Jones]

2. Like this

[Lex]

4. I love that picture!

:thumbsup:

[backscatter712]

10. Heh, didn't take long...

for someone to bring up http://godhatesshrimp.com/

[Canuckistanian]

147. Pinch the Tail. Suck The Head. Burn in Hell.

I want the bumper sticker.

[WCGreen]

5. Selective paganism...

[yardwork]

7. Excuse me. You aren't using "paganism" in a pejorative sense are you?

[WCGreen]

52. Oh god....

The pagan police...

Is nothing sacred...

(Psst.... It's all in fun...)

[yardwork]

99. Fun for you because you're neither pagan nor gay. I'm both.

[WCGreen]

101. How do you know I am not a pagan...

Or for that matter, Gay...

[yardwork]

107. Oh honey! Believe me, I can tell.

[WCGreen]

134. I have more faith in pagan beliefs than I do in Christian theology...

[LostinVA]

127. Oh brother

[LostinVA]

104. Guess why I have my avatar?

[LostinVA]

103. Yes -- that's what you always say to defend the offensive crap you spout

[yardwork]

6. This is going to spoil all the pig-pickings and barbecues this fall!

Lex, you meanie!

:evilgrin:

[Lex]

8. LOL!

It had to be done. :hippie:

[yardwork]

9. And the clam bakes! What will happen to the clam bakes??!!

Not to mention that Walmart would have no clothes inventory at all if polyester blends were banned.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Kicked & Recommended

Even though the bible is a bunch of woo woo

[hvn_nbr_2]

12. Wow, you didn't even mention all the circumstances when God requires...

you to incinerate dead animals for His pleasure.

Almost everything in Leviticus is now considered hopelessly primitive.

[Prophet 451]

15. except homosexuality

Which adds to me belief that conservative Christians pick their faith, and pick and choose their scriptures, to give them a socially acceptable excuse for their own hatred.

[NMMNG]

19. That's because they don't have the cajones to just come out and say

"I'm a bigot because I want to be!"

They have to hide behind their Bible, their god, their pastor, etc.

[Prophet 451]

29. Bill Maher

Bill Maher once said (about Jerry Falwell) that you could launder your hate through the Bible. He didn't hate gays, God did.

Struck me as true then, still does today.

[hvn_nbr_2]

27. Right. They pick and choose completely, based on their own prejudices.

The verses that tell them to hate whoever they already hate are the ones they hang onto.

[Igel]

30. Absolutely, with no place in a civil society.

We wouldn't want to be guilty of picking and choosing, would we? So if it's bad, it's bad, hopelessly primitive and, well, disgusting.

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself...." Leviticus 19:18.

Generally, from what I can see, Americans have finally evolved beyond such primitive notions. Gotta be a good thing.

They pick and choose according to their own lights, and they're hypocrites. We rail against their hypocrisy, then pick and choose according to our own lights, and we're ... um ... the good guys! (Then again, we knew because it's not inference, it's a definition.)

[sakabatou]

115. Ever since the fall of the second temple

A lot of the laws went with it.

[Richard Steele]

13. HEARTILY kicked and recommended!

[yardwork]

14. k&r for those who are still confused on this subject.

[NMMNG]

17. BAN RED LOBSTER NOW!

:P

[terrya]

18. I'm gay....and I shave...and I eat oysters!

Oh-oh....

[rurallib]

22. Today is your day - Happy Hallowe'en

[hvn_nbr_2]

28. Oh, man. You're triple-damned. I just hope you don't beat your slaves...

with a rod bigger than an inch (or a finger or whatever the legal measurement is). And if your brother dies and leaves a widow, you gotta marry her whether you're gay or not.

[XemaSab]

20. The Year of Living Biblically

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/006/1.9.html

[karlrschneider]

31. Thanks for that link, I want that book

:D

[StrongBad]

34. Bwahahahhaha!

Did you check out the author's quote???

"I'm Jewish in the same way the Olive Garden is an Italian restaurant. Which is to say: Not very."

I wonder if he's a lurker here hehe...

[UrbScotty]

21. I just shaved the other day

See you all in hell.

[Trillo]

23. I'd love to have 100% hemp jeans,

socks, and t-shirts.

[Duncan Grant]

24. Thanks, Lex! LMAO.

:rofl:

Humor really is the way to thwart those feverish fanatics.

[mitchum]

25. But Jaysus died so that I can pick and choose from the crazyass Abrahamic skygod...

rules I want to enforce

[shenmue]

26. Don't forget clothing made from more than one fabric!

All you people with polyester-cotton blend t-shirts, it's an abomination and God just doesn't like it!

:dunce:

:sarcasm:

[Kajsa]

112. I hate polyester with a passion!

100% cotton for me,thanks.

:evilgrin:

[alfredo]

32. is this over the top?

[cuke]

38. I think so

[alfredo]

41. Aw shucks

[Richard Steele]

83. Not in my book!

PUN intended.

[Beelzebud]

33. GOD HATES SHRIMP!

[cuke]

35. Is mocking Jewish traditions now the "progressive" thing to do?

[rockymountaindem]

36. Evidently

With complete disregard to the fact that Jewish legal tradition makes it practically impossible to implement the death penalty, so nobody would actually *be* put to death for these things.

I guess we're supposed to believe that until recently Jews have been bloodthirsty conformists.

[cuke]

37. I have no problem going after homophobes

but I also have no problem if someone doesn't want to eat an oyster

[Lex]

50. satire with a point is hard for some to understand

nt

[Richard Steele]

122. Well, you know what they say...

"You cannot awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep."

[eridani]

57. I rather suspect that Jewish traditions have changed a bit over 4000 years

I don't see any Jewish religious authorities arguing about cotton/polyester or defending slaveholding, do you?

So millenia ago, they were as barbaric as their neighbors. So what? At that point in history, my ancestors were hanging from trees and painting themselves blue, which is probably worse.

[REP]

42. Yes, this post was about keeping Kosher

Ab-so-lutely.

[Shallah Kali]

43. No but mocking fundamentalist Christians who wish to selectively implement Jewish traditions is

Kinda like when Colbert interviewed the congressman who wanted to make courts display the 10 commandments but could only name 3 of 'em.

[cuke]

45. "That's "P.O. box 1851 B.C.E.", right??"

Explain how that mocks this selective implementation? I see it as mocking old traditions merely because they are old, a point that has nothing to do with homophobia or hypocrisy

Some DUer's pick and choose too

[Lex]

46. LOL!

interesting take on it, to be sure

[regnaD kciN]

55. Wow...

...this has got to be the most creative playing of the "anti-Semitic card" I've yet seen on DU! :eyes:

[Megahurtz]

118. LOL No Shit!

:spray:

[Richard Steele]

119. He should change his name to "YogaMaster" after a STRETCH like that. nm

[yardwork]

100. Nobody is mocking anyone's dietary restrictions. We're mocking selective adherence.

I know many Jewish people who follow the dietary requirements of their faith. Personally, I've never met one Jewish person who is biased against gay people. Unfortunately, some right-wing Christians reverse this approach. They ignore everything in Leviticus except the one vague passage about men lying with men.

As I'm sure you know, right-wing Christian fundamentalists cite Leviticus as "proof" that homosexuality is wrong. It's all they've got. Every time anybody suggests that the country leave gay people alone and stop discriminating against them in so many ways, right-wing Christians start screeching about how it says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination.

The OP is pointing out that lots of other directives in Leviticus are totally ignored by the exact same people who use that section of the Bible to justify their bigotry against homosexuals. The same people who rail against homosexuality eat pork barbecue, fried shrimp, and steak and cheese sandwiches. They wear polyester-cotton blend clothes. They get divorced and remarried. In short, they violate every single one of the other directives in Leviticus, while insisting that laws discriminating against gays must continue because of what a passage in Leviticus says.

Nobody intends to mock anybody who sincerely follows any of the tenets of their religion, so long as they aren't using it as an excuse for bigotry.

[WinkyDink]

39. That's "P.O. box 1851 B.C.E.", right??

[The Straight Story]

40. Them crazy jews, we need to watch out for them folks

;)

[Lex]

47. not about jews, about fundy christian hypocrites

nt

[The Straight Story]

48. Well, I think a lot of them early christians were jews

;)

[Lex]

49. yeah well, the post is not about "them early christians" but the ones today

who "pick and choose" what to be up in arms about
or maybe it's just hard for some to understand the point

[The Straight Story]

Naw, I think it is like our own Constitution and the 2nd amendment

Different people interpret the same works in a different way.

[Seabiscuit]

130. Obiwan warned Luke about those "sand people".

You especially have to watch out for their crazy religions: christianity, judaism and islam. All born of "sand people".

[yardwork]

102. Thank you for your help. It's always deeply appreciated.

Really.

[opihimoimoi]

51. Them Levites who wrote several books in the Bible put themselves above women and other

tribes of differing cultures...read Morgan Freemans WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN

The ulterior motive was domination and control.....

Then, they had the audacity to camp next to the Cannibus Patch where their firewood came from.....

It was and still is all about CONTROL......

[Danger Mouse]

53. Being a Christian myself, and a Sunday School teacher...

I long ago realized that half of the Bible is isane and impossible to live by, unless you enjoy stonings and honor killings and such. Heck, even my current curriculum for 4th through 6th graders (made by the Presbyterian Church itself) suggests explaining oral tradition to the kids, and how the stories are myths (like the great flood, for instance).
That's wild. I guess once people started actually READING the Bible, that whole literal interpetation thing went out the window.

[rasputin1952]

59. There are al ot of good things in the Bible, as in most books, there is

good and bad, whether said book be religious, historical, scientific, gastronomic ot anything else. I think that there are a few pretty good notions in Leviticus as well, such as washing utensils and hands before eating or preparing food, and keeping some foods separate when there was a definite possibility of cross contamination being deadly considering this was long before the time of meat thermometers and refrigeration. The idea that one should keep bodily wastes and the offal produced during slaughtering and preparation of food as distant as possible from food preparation sites, living spaces and water sources makes a lot of sense, (talk about pissing on one's cornflakes).However, as in all things, the evolution of a society changes some mores and laws.

What I find most disturbing is that those who "pick and choose" from the Bible, are the one's who get the press. Phelps and his clan of fools as well as many others, receive the notoriety, but those who find the base tenets of a religion, such as forgiveness, understanding, empathy, charity and self sacrifice are left out in the cold. Phelps is a lost cause, an example of everything that Christianity is not supposed to be and never should have become. He, and others like him, have relegated themselves into a personal made hell that consists of hate, and severe distortions of everything that a real Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other religious follower could claim as something that should/could be emulated.

FWIW, the Bible takes a far dimmer view of hypocrisy that any other "sin", mentioning it far more often than anything else both outright and in various forms of metaphors. A lesson lost on those who would proclaim self righteously, that they are Christians fighting "God's War".

[yardwork]

105. They don't just get the press, they get to make the laws.

Gay people (and I know this first-hand because I am one) have significantly less protection from laws and regulations than straight people. What is the justification for this? The only justification I have ever been given is that "the Bible says that being gay is wrong."

[sampsonblk]

58. Yet another offensive anti-christian post at DU

Apparently, this type of hogwash is permitted here. So I appeal to your sense of reason.

You are obviously allowed to post this stuff. But no one is allowed to post the opposite. That gives you an unfair advantage and makes it seem as though you are right, when actually you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wanna see how nice it is to have an unfair advantage? There's a christian site (which someone posted in another thread) where no pro-gay rights comments are allowed. No pro-gay references in the bible are allowed. You can't say anything that challenges the idea that God hates gays and gayness.

So its all Leviticus all the time. If you say anything else, you get banned. Those people are no more right than you are. But no one is allowed to disagree with them on it.

[Danger Mouse]

60. I'm a Christian myself, and didn't find the OP offensive.

Did you understand the point of the post? It's not making fun of all Christians, just hypocrites like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to listen to (the parts that justify their bigotry), yet ignore all that annoying love and forgiveness stuff.

[sampsonblk]

61. Not acceptable

What happens here if someone posts a message making fun of the majority of blacks or Jews or gays or anyone else? The majority of christians believe the bible is the word of God. Making fun of the bible or those who believe it is offensive, insulting and selfish.

Its irrelevant that you don't take offense.

[toddaa]

66. Religion is chosen

You don't chose to be black or gay. You are not inherently a Christian, you choose it. It's like choosing to be a Republican or a Democrat. We often make fun of Republicans and Democrats too, but no one seems to get hung up on that. Are you offended by people who ridicule the Republican Party platform?

[LanternWaste]

71. Absolutely. Nothing wrong with ridiculing people...

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with ridiculing people for the things we can choose (tattoo's, piercings, eating meat), but it's just bad form to make fun of the things we can't choose (handedness, family, weight).

I'm sure there's a valid difference between the two... or something like that. I guess. Maybe.

[sampsonblk]

79. You are rationalizing rudeness and selfishness-nt

[LanternWaste]

87. I didn't put the sarcasm tag in...

I didn't put the sarcasm tag in, but I should have.

Personally, I think that ridiculing someone for a religion is just as tacky as ridiculing them for orientation. Both are bad form.

Yet there does seem to be an unwritten, vague rule around DU that the first is fair-game, while the latter is off-limits. I disagree with it, and attempted (unsuccessfully) to satirize that position.

[toddaa]

92. And you're rationalizing the limitation of critical thought

The only point that is being made is that ridiculing religious texts is not the same as ridiculing inherent ethnicity. If you wish to defend the Mosaic Law, that is your prerogative, but don't think you can shut down debate by claiming that criticizing religious texts is the same as being racist or homophobic. What's selfish is claiming your religious beliefs are not open for critical analysis.

[yardwork]

106. I'll tell you what is rude and selfish - denying rights to gay people is rude and selfish.

[theredpen]

73. Sexual activity is voluntary

I've never met anyone who chose to be either gay or straight, but unless you are a victim of rape, your sexual activity is voluntary. I think it's a criminal denial of human rights to insist that consensual sexual activity between two adults meet the arbitrary standards of a narrow group of people, but let's not pretend that being a particular ethnic group and engaging in particular sex acts are somehow comparable.

If you think this is an academic distinction, consider this: there's a lot of speculation that Tom Cruise is a closeted homosexual. How easy would it be for Samuel L. Jackson to be a closeted black man?

We're not going to win the battle against the homophobes by promoting the absurd notion that homosexual behavior is somehow impossible to control. That feeds directly into their claim that homosexuality is some sort of disease. What needs to be said — because it's the truth — is that homosexual attraction is innate and it's nobody's damn business who you have sex with and how you have sex with them (unless it's rape) period.

Until then, the Homophobe Jihad is going to keep finding poor gay schmucks to brainwash into "being cured." This will continue to support their claim that homosexuality is "a choice." Sometimes the point isn't whether or not you had a choice, but whether or not anyone has the right to question or criticize your choice. Equating homosexuality with ethnicity is just an intellectually lazy way of short-circuiting the debate and it's doomed to fail.

Finally, just because you can't differentiate between a political party and a religion doesn't give you license to promote such ignorant arguments.

[toddaa]

86. Sexual activity may be chosen, but sexual identity is not

This is why it differs from religious identity. You can chose to practice specific rituals that make a religious doctrine much like you can chose to engage in sexual activity. On the other hand, you can chose which religious beliefs you identify with, but you cannot chose your sexual identity. Sexuality and ethnicity may not be equal, but when it comes to prejudice, they are more similar than religious or political prejudice.

[theredpen]

95. Do you understand what religion is?

practice specific rituals that make a religious doctrine

This phrase is gibberish. Is this supposed to be evidence that you have any clue what religion is, particularly to religious people?

True faith chooses you — you don't choose it. Jehovah's Witnesses were given the option of being released from Nazi concentration camps if they'd only renounce their faith; they chose death because being Jehovah's Witnesses was every bit as much "who they were" as their sexual identity or anything else.

You can, if you want, choose to participate in a religion you don't actually believe, much like Republican homosexuals choose to pretend they're not gay. If someone says, "I'm gay and that's that," or "I'm straight and that's that," and there's no evidence that they're being a hypocrite, you respect their self-identity — unless you're a bigot. When someone claims to be a Catholic, yet endorses a war that the Vatican has consistently denounced (Iraq), then you can legitimately criticize them for being a hypocrite. If they claim to be a Catholic and you criticize them for not believing the same things you do, then you're a bigot.

Again, it doesn't matter whether sexual identity is innate; what matters is that it's nobody else's business to decide whether it's OK. Same with religion.

[toddaa]

129. Of course I understand what it is, but that's because I'm not cut and pasting like you

When you take that phrase out of context, it sure looks like gibberish to me. Put it back into context of your sexual identity versus sexual practice. Religious practice and religious belief are two different things. You can be a Buddhist who doesn't meditate, a Catholic who doesn't receive the Eucharist, or a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't bang on my door on Saturday morning and it is much the same thing as being a homosexual who does not engage in homosexual activity. But unlike homosexuality, you can't do is claim to be born a Buddhist, Catholic, or Jehovah's Witness.

"True faith chooses you"

You either choose the faith of your parents or you actively seek out a new one based on learned ethics. Either way, you actively select the religious beliefs that are now part of your identity.

"If they claim to be a Catholic and you criticize them for not believing the same things you do, then you're a bigot."

Criticizing an idea is in no way, shape, or form bigotry. It doesn't matter if the idea is religious, political, or scientific. Now, I happen to agree with you that forcing someone to change their religious identity is wrong, but that is not the same as critically analyzing the beliefs that make up a religious identity.

[theredpen]

132. Oh sure, blame the cut'n'paste

You either choose the faith of your parents or you actively seek out a new one based on learned ethics. Either way, you actively select the religious beliefs that are now part of your identity.

One of the things that distinguishes the subjective experience we call "faith" is that one often feels "called" by a faith as if it is a spiritual home. I guess if you've never had this experience, you'll be satisfied with the empirical theory you've espoused above, despite the fact that it does not fit the available data. Personally, I don't like to tell people that their subjective experiences are different than they say they are because I think that would make me a pompous jerk. "No, you didn't experience that!" Yeah, I'm just not smart enough to say that to someone's face.

Criticizing an idea is in no way, shape, or form bigotry. It doesn't matter if the idea is religious, political, or scientific.

Equal protection under the law for all races is an idea. Criticizing that idea is a form of bigotry, todaa, because to criticize it entails denying that its premise is unimpeachable. There are a lot of ideas like that around here. Notice that no one is criticizing the "it's not OK to hate gays" position here. The reason is that DUers are generally not bigots, and attacking ideas that are antithetical to bigotry is a form of bigotry.

There are also in-group restrictions to criticizing ideas. I have no business saying something like, "Blacks shouldn't listen to 'gangsta rap' because it promotes negative social concepts," because I have no business telling the black community what social standards it should have. Chris Rock can say that; people may disagree with him, but he is in-group, so he has a say on that issue.

Likewise, you have no business debating the relative merits of Catholic and Mormon soteriology unless you understand what the difference is and why the different faiths believe what they do. Nevertheless, look up any thread where people discuss the Mormonism of Mitt Romney or Harry Reid and you'll see lots of completely uninformed declarations about Mormon and Christian beliefs. Particularly painful are the discussions concerning whether or not the LDS Church should really be considered Christian; that requires having a cogent concept of what "Christian" means in the first place and its a near certainty that none of the people who discuss this in public forums have such a concept. These people in this discussions are well-meaning, but so are white people who say that blacks should stop listening to "gansta rap."

The claim that "criticizing an idea is in no way, shape, or form bigotry" is an apologetic for bigotry. Not all ideas — in fact, very few ideas — in the realm of human experience are subject to falsifiability and the filters of peer-reviewed journals. The vast majority of them are subjective, and must, therefore, take into account the personal experience and positions of the people who hold them. To fail to do so is to dehumanize them.

[toddaa]

135. Still missing the point

You keep conflating racial bigotry with religious bigotry and that is where I am trying to draw a distinction. I can criticize religious beliefs without impugning believers because religious beliefs are not inherent in the individual, they are learned. What's more, not all religious people, even within the same faith, have the same beliefs. To criticize a religious doctrine is not the same as criticizing a religious individual. The religious doctrine is independent of the believer and many believers change their beliefs over time.

Race, on the other hand, cannot be changed which is why I don't believe that racial ideas are open for free debate. Sorry I did not clarify that. When I say that ideas are open for criticism, I specifically draw the line between ideas that are religious, political, or scientific, and those that are racial, ethnic, or deal with sexual orientation. You are born black, you are not born Mormon.

Let's try this. I am critical of the concept of original sin. I believe that original sin is degrading toward humanity and is a fundamental flaw of Christianity. My criticism of original sin does not translate to me being bigoted against people who believe in original sin, any more than my criticism of NAFTA translates into me being bigoted against people who believe in unregulated free trade. I am able to separate the idea from the person who believes it. Racist ideas, on the other hand, about what blacks should or shouldn't do are just that. Racist.

One other issue. I am not denying your subjective experience. I happen to believe that your subject experiences occurred based on causes that can be analyzed empirically, but I am not claiming they didn't happen. How you choose to believe what caused those experiences is where we differ, but then I have subjective experiences that I cannot explain and that you will never understand either. I do find it curious, however, that you suggest that because I am not a believer, I cannot understand your point of view. How do you know that I have never had religious experiences or a calling of the faith as you put it? Because I no longer believe? Are you going to suggest that non believers who used to be believers never really believed in the first place? That sounds to me like a denial of another person's subjective experience.

When you say that only Christians can criticize Christian doctrine, what you are really saying is that up until the point I was no longer a Christian, I was quite free to challenge the entirety of Christian dogma, but once I crossed the line between Christian and non Christian, I lost that freedom.

[theredpen]

139. Confusion, yes

I am not trying to conflate intolerance of religious beliefs with intolerance of race because, as you point out, that would be silly. Some cultural beliefs are associated with ethnic groups and like some religious beliefs, are not appropriate for discussion by outsiders. I was really trying to compare intolerance of religious belief with intolerance of homosexuality. Homosexual orientation is qualitatively different from religious belief but there is a similar volitional element in each.

I believe that original sin is degrading toward humanity and is a fundamental flaw of Christianity.

Thank you for illustrating my point exactly. "Original Sin" is not a necessary belief for Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen">Origen denied the concept of original sin and argued that even if it were a valid concept it was obviated by Universal Salvation and, therefore, of no importance. Origen was one of the first and remains one of the most respected Christian theologians in history, so I'm a little stunned that after his writings have stood for nearly two thousand years that "original sin" is now a requisite belief and a fundamental flaw in Christianity.

I do find it curious, however, that you suggest that because I am not a believer, I cannot understand your point of view.

"Non-believer" isn't the term that I'd really use in this case, but yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you can't understand my point of view since you don't seem to understand basic Christian theology.

When you say that only Christians can criticize Christian doctrine, what you are really saying is that up until the point I was no longer a Christian, I was quite free to challenge the entirety of Christian dogma, but once I crossed the line between Christian and non Christian, I lost that freedom.

Maybe it's just me, but the freedom to challenge the entirety of Christian dogma would necessarily rest on having a grasp of the entirety of Christian dogma. I don't, and I sure as hell know more of it than you ever did. Did you even know who Origen was before I mentioned him in this post? Be honest.

How do you know that I have never had religious experiences or a calling of the faith as you put it?

Remember that guy in high school who insisted that he wasn't a virgin, but it was really, really obvious that he was? It's like that.

[toddaa]

145. I was a Dispensationalist, not a Catholic

My experience in Christianity is different from yours. Original sin was very much a part of my religious experience. It is a fundamental belief of dispensationalism. You are correct that Christian theology is complex and that the entirety of its theology is sometimes contradictory and that my experience in fundamentalism, which I can assure you I was very much a fervent believer in, colors my view point. However, I think its a bit of a stretch on your part to suggest that original sin is no longer held as a basic tenet by any Christians. Is it a basic tenet of Christianity? Well, some Christians believe that you are a false Christian for rejecting it. I don't believe that, but you have to recognize that such sentiment exists.

Honestly, I don't care that your knowledge of Christian history is greater than mine. My experience was, as you say, subjective not academic. I'd say that quite a few devout Christians have a profound ignorance of academic Christian theology and knowledge of the history of Christian teachings has no bearing on whether a person is a Christian or not. Do you believe that your belief is more profound than theirs? Now who's denying another person's subjective experience. My knowledge of KJV is the extent of my interest in Christian theology because it was drilled into my head for a good twenty years. In dispensationalism, that's the only knowledge of Christian theology that you will ever need. I have managed to drink those brain cells dead since giving up belief, but I can still quote huge chunks of the damn thing from memory.



(As to your challenge, yes I have heard of Origen, but only in a name recognition sense. Never read him and have no interest in ever doing so. cheers)

[Richard Steele]

69. And it's just as irrelevant that you find it "not acceptable".

Perhaps even MORE irrelevant, in light of the fact
that you don't understand what's being discussed here,
and refuse to be enlightened.

If any and all criticism of "Christians" is so unacceptable,
how do you read the Letters? Do you just skip over those
because you don't care for them?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

81. Question dodging -AND- a personal insult. Way to spread the good Word!

So, there are "virtually no christians who mention their faith here"
because they can't handle people asking simple questions?
That's what you're saying? :eyes:

Funny- all the Christians I know are happy to discuss the Bible,
and their opinions and interpretations of it. And they're POLITE
when they do it. Pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you're doing
here in this thread.

I really don't think you speak for Christians as a group.
None that I know would want ANYONE to think that you speak for them.

[sampsonblk]

84. Look, Dick

Your loaded questions were stupid. I know...you think you are onto something. But actually you are not.

I made the point I wanted to make.

[Richard Steele]

85. Your insults, condescension, and question-dodging paint a pretty clear picture.

Much clearer than your vague and unsubstantiated claims
that your unstated opinion is more correct than anyone else's.

You're basically refusing to provide answers, while
simultaneously insisting that YOUR answers are the only correct ones. :silly:

Do you actually expect any sane adult to accept such an
irrational non-arguement?
Do you think that calling people "idiot" actually strengthens
your case?

You've certainly made a POINT here, but it's not the one
you were shooting for.

[theredpen]

96. Don't call him Dick!

He gets very irritable for some reason — especially if you don't capitalize the word.

[Richard Steele]

136. "For some reason"? Yeah, that's just a mystery for the fucking AGES, innit?

Pfft. :eyes: :eyes:

[Nihil]

82. Maybe *you* *personally* don't find it acceptable ...

... but that's a whole different ball game from claiming ex-cathedra that
the OP is "not acceptable". The former is a simple opinion (and worth as
much as anyone else's) whilst the latter is an attempt to ban expressions
of opinion that differ from your own.


FWIW,

> The majority of christians believe the bible is the word of God.

Maybe in the US (though I'd question it even there) but across Europe,
the majority of Christians have more sense than to believe the Bible
is "the word of God" as they understand the impact that the generations
of editors have had on whatever original material existed.

:shrug:

The Bible is a little library, an anthology that contains everything
from (claimed) genealogies through rabbinical dietary advice, easy-read
introductions to the world, CCs of important diocese memos and examples
of hallucinogenic dreams. Not all of the chapters are equal and only a
complete nutcase would suggest that they are. (The preceding sentence
was a quote from a bishop when I was young.) IMO, anyone who insists
that a particular chapter of the book should have legal status deserves
to be brought back to the real world - preferably by humour rather than
by incarceration.

[theredpen]

97. Leviticus doesn't apply to the majority of Christians

The majority of christians believe the bible is the word of God.

My take on the OP is that it is making fun of people who cite one part of Leviticus and ignore the rest of it. As far as what God said, the laws in Leviticus do not apply to gentiles — they never have. If Christians want to believe that the Bible is the word of God (and by Bible, I mean the Torah, because the New Testament never claimed to be the Word), that's fine. Of course, if they believe that, they should take a little time to understand what God is actually saying.

"Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome

[lumpy]

114. "The majority of Christians believe the Bible is the word of

God" ? Where did you get that idea? It is accepted by modern Christian believers that the Bible was written by a series of men who were seeking their own path and took note of the stories, traditons and myths that were passed down from former generations.
By the way didn't you know it is offensive to not capitalize the word Christian and Bible?

[endarkenment]

121. The post pointed out the cherry picking going on

in using the bible to justify bigotry. If you think that behavior applies to 'most christians' that is your problem.

[Danger Mouse]

138. It's irrelevant? No, I do think it's relevant that we don't all have knee-jerk reactions to this

stuff.
What's the matter? Can't handle some criticism of our faith? I've seen some downright nasty and hostile posts towards Christians on DU. This OP was not one of them.

[NMMNG]

76. This isn't an "anti-Christian" post

It's an anti-homophobia post. It's against those who selectively implement certain parts of the Bible against other people while ignoring wholesale other parts that would be inconvenient for them to follow. People who use the Bible as a weapon against others rather than as a guide for their own lives. If you can't understand that nobody can help you.

[sampsonblk]

80. I understand it just fine, thank you.

I don't need your help to understand the OP.

I find it very offensive. I am not alone in feeling that way. I am alone in saying so.

[Ignis]

89. I'm offended that you called another DUer "some idiot."

I'm also offended by hypocrites who selectively pick-and-choose when to be offended or not over the slightest bit of humor directed at a ridiculous set of millenia-old laws.

Do YOU wear clothing of mixed fibers, and yet call yourself a Christian? If so, what horse do you have in this race? It's not a salad bar where you get to pick and choose which laws to obey....

:nopity:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. You're offended because Leviticus is stupid?

So why get mad at the OP? He didn't make up that goofy shit.

[yardwork]

108. Do you find it offensive because it points hypocrisy?

It seems to me that the OP hit right on target. It stung, didn't it? Did you recognize yourself in the description of people who selectively choose individual passages as "God's word" while conveniently ignoring the ones that might interfere with your enjoyment of this weekend's barbecue?

[Divine Discontent]

123. that is false...

reasonable arguments are allowed here. but to say things like, "I believe it is MORALLY disgusting that gay people CHOOSE to do these things together and it shouldn't be permitted per my Christian belief, but I still love the SINNER, just not the sin!" will get people tombstoned, because that is a total bigot's heart talking.

now, my question is, how is this anti-Christian, when Jesus Christ, my savior is not involved with these church law codes of Leviticus? The need of rituals and sacrifices was made moot by His arrival and sin was paid for by His blood, as you know, so I find attempts to force law about gays based on BIBLICAL interpretation comical, when they won't demand a law stating all the other things you can get stoned for. Jesus Christ help us!

God bless you, and I'd have a hard time visiting that board you mentioned, if they don't allow regular discussion like your specific post here can be described as, I don't know about your other posts, but this one, calling the other post "hogwash" is still OK, but it's if you cross the line into intolerance?

BIBLIOLOTRY - the zealous worshipping of the bible instead of GOD

[Arugula Latte]

125. Get over yourself. Enough with the "poor persecuted Xtian" crap.

Christians dominate our culture and too many try to impose silly Bible-based fairy tale crap on EVERYBODY.

A lot of us are plenty sick of it, and we're not going to shut up anymore.

[theredpen]

133. We know

Christians dominate our culture and too many try to impose silly Bible-based fairy tale crap on EVERYBODY.

A lot of us are plenty sick of it, and we're not going to shut up anymore.

Yeah, well good for you. On that not-shutting-up thing, though, may I be so bold as to slip in just one teensy weensy little piece of Bible-based fairy tale crap? It's Proverbs 17:27-28. Anyway, carry on.

[MrMickeysMom]

137. Makes me glad Jesus was a liberal, I tell you

Why, in fact, I bet he's laughing his ass off over this excellent thread.

Jesus and I are Kicking this one...

[Toasterlad]

146. "But no one is allowed to disagree with them on it."

But here you are, disagreeing with the OP, and not having your message deleted. So what are you bitching about?

Your analogies are ALWAYS flawed, because you ALWAYS equate christian persecution with homosexual persecution. Christianity is a conscious choice on your part, whereas homosexuality is a biological trait. My problem with your christianity is a philosophical argument, your problem with the way I was born is sheer idiocy.

[mmonk]

64. Brilliant.

I love the throw it back in their faces approach.

[JMDEM]

67. EXCUSE ME!!!!

You forgot that it is an abomination to even touch the skin of a pig.

Therefore football is a total abomination. It should be banned completely.

I guess they could use rubber or cow leather balls.

Is polyester a fiber?

[yardwork]

110. This is just playing hell with some people's plans for the weekend.

No football - and cheering on your team means you are cheering on abominations. No fried shrimp, pork barbecue, baby back ribs, or bacon cheeseburgers.

That outfit you planned to wear to watch the game? Well, the jeans are ok because they are all cotton, but the socks and underwear are a cotton-dacron blend so they're going to have to go. Same for the no-iron shirt. And your sneakers! In fact, I don't know what you're going to wear on your feet from now on because it's really hard to find a shoe that is made entirely of one type of material.

[LanternWaste]

68. Leviticus is about as exciting as reading a Department of Motor Vehicle manual.

The Book of Leviticus had one primary target audience-- the Levites, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Levites historic function within the tribes of Israel were that of lawmakers, judges and priests.

Reading the Book of Leviticus carefully, it becomes obvious rather quickly that the majority of the laws were directed at the lawgivers and priests only-- not all the tribes, just the Levites. Most of the dietary and clothing restrictions were 'Levite-Only' laws. Rules that set the Levites apart in manner, clothing and diet from the other eleven tribes.

A sizable number, but much less in count were the laws that were to be applied to the entire Tribe of Israel. Most of these laws were moral in nature rather than specific instructions.

It's no coincidence that reading Leviticus is about as exciting as reading a Department of Motor Vehicle manual.

[JMDEM]

72. It's more exciting than

Reading that section in the bible where they say Fred begat Ralph, and Ralph begat Leroy, and Leroy begat Floyd, and Floyd begat Billy-Joe, and Billy-Joe begat Claude, and Claude begat Bubba...

[opihimoimoi]

91. It was the beginning of the end of Sanity and Reason..I am suprised we got this far.

[0rganism]

126. Deuteronomy is much more engaging, yet nearly as wacked

One interesting thing about Deuteronomy is that Moses makes it clear early on that pretty much everything he's saying applies to ALL the Israelites: dietary restrictions, marital practices, what not to do when besieging a city, and so on. The law he hands down in that book is unquestionably expected to be the common law of the tribes. It was a code that set the tribes apart and bound them together in both prosperity and exile. Whatever else may be said about it, Mosaic law was forward-thinking in some ways -- e.g., the requirement of multiple witnesses for a criminal conviction.

Far more prominent are the absurdities. I wonder how many people today would consider payment to an unbetrothed virgin's family of 50 shekels and forced marriage to the victim to be adequate penalty for a rapist? Such a notion would be abhorrent to contemporary Western society, most of us would hardly find justice in such laws now, yet somehow we cannot shake free of certain select passages that appear to confirm established biases...

[Javaman]

74. Damn it! no more rayon cotton blends! nt

[yardwork]

111. How are we going to keep our socks up?

[Javaman]

142. LOL!!!

:rofl:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

88. My faith

says I get to wear microfiber!

Stop persecuting me! Respect my faith!

A person's faith must NEVER be criticized, no matter HOW idiotic!

[rucky]

93. God Hates Figs...

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

Sorry, Newton.

[Megahurtz]

120. WTF?

Hahahahaha!

[Richard Steele]

94. I love this thread. It's better than "Cats"! I'm going to kick it again and again! nm

[Richard Steele]

98. And again!

[Richard Steele]

116. And again!

[Richard Steele]

131. Maybe even one more time- I haven't decided yet. :)

[Richard Steele]

144. I hope Leviticus doesn't say anything about kicking good threads too much. nm

[MissB]

109. That was from an old Voter's Pamplet, wasn't it?

An opposition argument cleverly cloaked as a "for" argument. I'm going to have to guess Measure 36.

[kenfrequed]

117. I was always curious

Why I never saw a fundamentalist group picketing outside a Red Lobster.

[mainer]

124. Leviticus describes a protection racket

You give your best meats and your best breads to the priestly class -- and in exchange, they won't cause you to be exhiled or damned in hell.

And then the priests and their families got to eat and enjoy to their hearts' content.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

140. O how I love the Subgenii

"If you don't know shit from shinola, don't order tunafish in a French restaurant."

[Norrin Radd]

141. Well, I haven't crossbred cattle...

[laureloak]

143. We need a new religion. n/t