Open letter to Bush

[SonomaCat]

This was apologetically posted on a current events email distribution list that I'm a part of, so I apologetically post it here. It's pretty worn out material, but does a good job of putting this into perspective.

Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to
educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional
amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God
marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

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.

['93HonoluluCat]

Not a big fan of this post. Apologetic or not, it pokes fun at President Bush, and Christians.

BAC, why post this, when you impune those on this board that make fun of mores and beliefs you hold? I thought you would always be apart enough to remain objective and above the fray.

I'm disappointed.

[SonomaCat]

Not a big fan of this post. Apologetic or not, it pokes fun at President Bush, and Christians.

BAC, why post this, when you impune those on this board that make fun of mores and beliefs you hold? I thought you would always be apart enough to remain objective and above the fray.

I'm disappointed.

That's interesting. I thought it was fairly effective in making some pretty good points about the silliness of using the Bible to justify homophobia (and racsim). If using verbatim quotes and references from the Bible in a literal context to illustrate the point of how silly that really is is considered to be disrespectful to a group of people, then perhaps those people are the ones who need this perspective more than the people who readily see the humor in it.

I would have expected you to have a series of bullet points justifying Bush's beliefs and contrasting it to the other Biblical references.

I think what we are butting up against is a topic that I have seen floating around quite a bit lately. A lot of people complain that "blue" people see "red" people in a condescending way as a bunch of non-thinkers and sheep. In fact, I think I have read that complaint in here.

From the perspective of a blue state resident, this copied post speaks to that point. It baffles many people that others can hold discriminatory beliefs and then try to use something such as a religion to justify it. If you engage a person using this defense in a discussion on the topic, you eventually hit a point where it can go no further, for they don't rely upon intellectual reason or logic as the end point -- they rely solely on "faith." They have faith that what they have been told is true, and it cannot be questioned. Therefore, the logical conversation between the two people comes to an end.

This post points out how silly it is for people to selectively apply their faith to the ends of homophobia while ignoring all of the other equally silly laws of the ancient Hebrew world.

If that is poking fun at Christians, then I don't know what to say. It seems to me that it is making a compelling and logical argument in a way that gets people's attention.

And, if people decide that it is important to hold on to their supposed "Christian"-justified homophobia, then it is up to them to reconcile their own hypocrisy. I think that's a net positive for the world. Forcing people to think is a good thing. Accepting other people's or institution's ideas without challenging them in one's own mind is a bad thing.

If that posts stimulates thought and discussion, then it is a good thing.

And, quite frankly, having our President tell us what God thinks, and further telling us that discrimination in the name of God is a good thing, is absurd, and he deserves to have fun poked at him for it. Forty or fifty years from now, people will just shakes their heads in wonder at this whole episode.

To provide some balance, I will also throw out that it is absurd for Muslims to kill non-Muslims in suicide attacks so they can become martyrs as per the Koran and have their 70 (or whatever number) virgins when they get to heaven. I think that's bad policy as well, and shouldn't be followed. Leaders who promote that kind of hate-filled religion should also have fun poked at them, at very least. Of course, the absurdity of that stuff is more obvious to us as it is foreign to our culture. We are slower to recognize our own culture's absurdities, hence it comes wrapped in satire.

[DCC2MSU]

I didn't take this post too seriously, and therefore thought it was pretty funny. I don't think there is anything wrong with poking fun at any elected official - president included. I also thought a lot of the jokes about Clinton and Gore were very comical. Thankfully not every law is strickly based on biblical writings or any times for that matter. It would be a scary place if we didn't accept that things change. Too those who are offended by this in respect to Bush, I can also assume you were also disgusted any time someone poked fun at Clinton and never took part in such thing...right? On a side note I will share my favorite SNL skits of all time: 1) More Cowbell - without a doubt, 2) Neil Diamond duet album with Bigfoot, 3) Ray Romano doing SportCenter, 4) Bush and Gore playing Scrabble, and 5) Could be any number of them.

[wbtfg]

Not a big fan of this post. Apologetic or not, it pokes fun at President Bush, and Christians.

BAC, why post this, when you impune those on this board that make fun of mores and beliefs you hold? I thought you would always be apart enough to remain objective and above the fray.

I'm disappointed.

HC- It seems to me that you are against anyone poking any fun at the president. Bush (like all presidents) has made mistakes and has some messed up views on a few issues. Why can't we make fun of them? Are you against criticizing all presidents...or just republican presidents?

[velochat]

Some folks have an ashcroftian dislike of free speech. Of course, one can justify virtually anything with a quote from the bible.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/print.asp?id=1113

[El_Gato]

bay, velo, and all liberal "tolerance-preachers",

I'm curious first by the fact that gays and liberals and those who profess to be the most "tolerant" in our society won't tolerate MY right to decide whether or not I agree with certain issues, especially homosexuality. Why is it that I'M the intolerant one, simply because I believe it to be wrong? Why aren't you intolerant because you can't or won't accept my views on the subject? You don't want me to hold onto my views & beliefs; isn't that intolerance? This is typical liberal dogma; if you don't agree with my view of the world, you are intolerant, while it's perfectly ok for me to disagree with your view & DEMAND that you change it.

Do I believe we need an amendment to protect marriage? No. I don't recall specific rights being granted to "couples", married or otherwise, in the Constitution, so I really think ANY laws dealing with marriage or granting special rights and/or priviledges to married couples are not Constitutional. We ALL should have equal protection under the law, married or single, gay or straight, black or white, etc...

One of the biggest problems I see in American society today is the continued "shrinking" of right & wrong; the "gray" area of things that are not necessarily right or wrong continues to grow to the point where I fear TOO MANY things have become tolerable at best, or are completely accepted at worst.

I have stated for years that America has become the modern-day Roman Empire and I fear that we, like the ancient Romans, are going to be faced soon with the demise of our society due, in large part, to an excess of tolerance and the disappearance of clear views of right & wrong. If you've studied ancient Roman culture at all, you will see numerous similarities; the size, scope, reach, and cost of the central government; entertainment of the masses reaching ever further to the "extremes"; corruption at all levels; "colonization" or in today's version, the desire to force our societal "systems" on the rest of the world; the reduction or relaxation of sexual inhibitions, including the advancement of the homosexual lifestyle...

Those of us who want little, if any, "gray" areas are labeled un-enlightened or intolerant by those who would prefer a freer, "looser" society. When we as a society can no longer clearly agree on the basic rights & wrongs that will govern us, is anarchy far behind?

I was somewhat heartened by this election to see that in the "Heartland" of America, there is still a desire to keep things black & white, right & wrong. It's amazing to me how threatening that is to the self-appointed "enlightened intellectuals" in the blue areas and how desperate they are to force THEIR societal visions on the rest of us, regardless of the fact that they are still clearly the minority...

I relinquish the podium...

[Bleedinbluengold]

History is repleat with "intellectuals" and "public figures" lamenting the degradation of America's morals and values. Heck, it started almost immediately, if not before the Constitution was even drafted. In my humble opinion, neither our morals or values have degraded, because, whose really to say that these nebulous perceptions were more correct last year or last century. America has always been about personal freedom. So I ask, how can a country founded on such a basis really ever have a degradation of anything?

Personally, I like that email that BAC posted, which I have seen printed in various newspapers in the editorial section. I think it is entirely appropriate to try to make people think about "stuff", and especially if it involves religion.

I like what El-G had to say about intolerance...if that doesn't make a person think, then certainly BAC's original post shouldn't cause any consternation either.

As far as Biblical teachings go, I have a hard time with just about any facet of any religion. What's wrong with just being nice to other people, and leave it at that? Anytime religion and religious teachings are brought into the mix of any dialogue, it all just gets blowed up!!! Religion has never solved any problem, but it sure has caused more than its share in the history of the world. I guess I'm just intolerant of religion.

And, if ya can't poke fun at the American President, who the hell can ya poke fun at?

[SonomaCat]

bay, velo, and all liberal "tolerance-preachers",

I'm curious first by the fact that gays and liberals and those who profess to be the most "tolerant" in our society won't tolerate MY right to decide whether or not I agree with certain issues, especially homosexuality. Why is it that I'M the intolerant one, simply because I believe it to be wrong? Why aren't you intolerant because you can't or won't accept my views on the subject? You don't want me to hold onto my views & beliefs; isn't that intolerance? This is typical liberal dogma; if you don't agree with my view of the world, you are intolerant, while it's perfectly ok for me to disagree with your view & DEMAND that you change it.

Do I believe we need an amendment to protect marriage? No. I don't recall specific rights being granted to "couples", married or otherwise, in the Constitution, so I really think ANY laws dealing with marriage or granting special rights and/or priviledges to married couples are not Constitutional. We ALL should have equal protection under the law, married or single, gay or straight, black or white, etc...

One of the biggest problems I see in American society today is the continued "shrinking" of right & wrong; the "gray" area of things that are not necessarily right or wrong continues to grow to the point where I fear TOO MANY things have become tolerable at best, or are completely accepted at worst.

I have stated for years that America has become the modern-day Roman Empire and I fear that we, like the ancient Romans, are going to be faced soon with the demise of our society due, in large part, to an excess of tolerance and the disappearance of clear views of right & wrong. If you've studied ancient Roman culture at all, you will see numerous similarities; the size, scope, reach, and cost of the central government; entertainment of the masses reaching ever further to the "extremes"; corruption at all levels; "colonization" or in today's version, the desire to force our societal "systems" on the rest of the world; the reduction or relaxation of sexual inhibitions, including the advancement of the homosexual lifestyle...

Those of us who want little, if any, "gray" areas are labeled un-enlightened or intolerant by those who would prefer a freer, "looser" society. When we as a society can no longer clearly agree on the basic rights & wrongs that will govern us, is anarchy far behind?

I was somewhat heartened by this election to see that in the "Heartland" of America, there is still a desire to keep things black & white, right & wrong. It's amazing to me how threatening that is to the self-appointed "enlightened intellectuals" in the blue areas and how desperate they are to force THEIR societal visions on the rest of us, regardless of the fact that they are still clearly the minority...

I relinquish the podium...

There are currently no laws that restrict the right of anyone to be a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc. Until there is, then there probably isn't really a reason for anyone to campaign proactively to protect the rights of and extend tolerance towards people who hold those views. While many people do want there to be more tolerance in our society for groups of people who have been historically discriminated against and persecuted, there is no real compelling reason to spend that same energy asking for acceptance of the persecutors. Obviously, they have already found quite a bit of acceptance, as they are the ones who created the existing persecution.

So while I may disagree with you on certain things, I certainly tolerate you. I think most liberals (with some radical exceptions) would agree with that statement. I don't think your lifestyle is harming me, and I'm fine with you doing whatever you want to do in your personal life. The moment a person starts talking about making laws to limit the freedoms (to do things that harm nobody else) and rights of another person, however, it's a whole different issue.

What simpler test of "right" and "wrong" is there than asking the question "Does this act hurt someone else?" If an act doesn't harm anyone, how can it be "wrong?" What are some examples of the increasing acceptance of acts that are wrong under this definition that are leading our country to Hades? That's a serious question -- I am curious to find out what kinds of things you are thinking about just to see how close or far away we are in our opinions.

I agree 100% with your position on marriage laws. That makes sense. I respect the fact that you may not personally agree with a lifestyle, but yet your belief in the equal treatment of all people under the laws of our country trumps that personal preference. That, to me, is a true Republican mindset -- less government interference on all levels -- not just on those that we happen to be convenient for us personally.

How does your Roman Empire analogy tie into our current conflict in Iraq? That's an interesting discussion point, although I don't really buy the theory in its entirety. And gays weren't the reason behind the fall of Rome... or Greece... or Macedonia... or any other empire that accepted gays and rose and fell. Who's to say that is wasn't gays that made these empires great in the first place? It seems like the Roman Empire fell only after the Catholic Church took it over and started banning everything (including gays). It was doing just fine when the pagans were running things, worshipping nature (via the Roman Gods), and sleeping with whoever they wanted.

The post did create some good conversation -- I'm glad I posted it.

[BobCatFan]

This is a a board to support MSU.

How can we ban this member from posting. He is no better then an extreme Griz fan coming onto our site.

If I wanted to be preached at, I would go find a political board.

[SonomaCat]

This is a a board to support MSU.

How can we ban this member from posting. He is no better then an extreme Griz fan coming onto our site.

If I wanted to be preached at, I would go find a political board.

Who/what are you talking about?

[jagur1]

BAC are you preaching again

I agree thow who/What is Bobcatfan talking about?

['93HonoluluCat]

So many comments, so little time--but let's see what I can do.

velochat wrote:
Some folks have an ashcroftian dislike of free speech. Of course, one can justify virtually anything with a quote from the bible.

Velo, I've never criticized your stances. I may have disagreed with them, and offered alternate views, but that does not justify slandering me because I don't find the same things "funny" as you.

wbtfg wrote:
HC- It seems to me that you are against anyone poking any fun at the president. Bush (like all presidents) has made mistakes and has some messed up views on a few issues. Why can't we make fun of them? Are you against criticizing all presidents...or just republican presidents?

I do not disapprove of humorous jabs at officials in office, as long as they are 1) clean; 2) reasonable; and 3) not malicious. Within those three personal rules, I don't care whether the President is Republican, Democrat or from Mars. I merely mentioned to BACs original posting that I thought it wasn't funny. I also thought it odd that he would take such a jab after repeatedly berating posters for making statements belittling (as opposed to discussing) other views.

BAC wrote:
I would have expected you to have a series of bullet points justifying Bush's beliefs and contrasting it to the other Biblical references.

Well, all you had to do was ask...

First off, though, I must point out that I abhor any person that uses their faith as a basis of discrimination. The Bible calls us to care for our neighbors, but condemn the sins they commit. Unfortunately, many in the Christian faith have trouble discerning the difference.

Off we go...

BAC posted:
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

This verse (and all the others posted by BAC in the "open letter" is a part of a group of hundreds of rules and regulations called the Law. It is important to note that this group of rules is always referred to in the singular form such as: the Law of Moses, the Law of the Lord, the Law of God, the Book of the Law or simply the Law. This Law is contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Jesus said: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:17) These rules were to be taken as one Law. It's all or nothing.

Let's look at some of the rules of the Law found in Leviticus. Chapters 1-7 has rules about the different kinds of offerings and sacrifices that were to be made in preparation for worship. Chapters 8-10 has rules for the priests regarding offerings, sacrifices, and other priestly duties. Chapter 11 has rules about clean and unclean foods. For example you will find that pork and shrimp are abomination but it's OK to eat beetles, locusts and grasshoppers. Chapter 12 has rules about purification of a woman after childbirth and the circumcision of males is a must. Chapters 13-14 has rules related to skin disorders from leprosy to scabby stuff like dandruff, eczema and zits. Chapter 15 has rules about purification of women after their period and for men with seminal discharges. Chapter 16 has more priestly rules Chapter 17 has rules about not consuming blood. Chapter 18 has rules about sex. Chapter 19 has rules about dealing fairly with others, crossbreeding of animals and crops is not allowed (No tangelos allowed and Tropicana twisters are a synthetic sin). Mixed fabrics are a no-no! (no polyester or cotton blends), no cutting of sideburns or trimming of beards, when you plant a tree you are to avoid eating its fruit for three years. Chapter 20 has more rules about sex...if a man has sex with a woman on her period they are both to be cut off from the people and that if a couple commits adultery they are both to be put to death. Chapter 25 has rules about not lending money to a country man with interest, and we are not to sell food at a profit. My favorite law is in Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts."

We can go on and on. These laws have to do with being clean or unclean and about keeping yourself from being cut off from the people. Clean or unclean for what? Cut off from the congregation? Why?

In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt-- on the very day-- they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
Exodus 19:1-6 (NIV)

Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. The function of a priest is to lead in worship and offer sacrifices to God on behalf of sinners. So, this was the function of the Israelites. This was the reason they were called by God. They had to be set apart from the other nations or consecrated in order to be purified for worshiping and serving a Holy God. In Leviticus 20:7,8 He said to them, "'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. (NIV)

When you read the Law you will find that the only way to really be purified for worship was by the blood of a lamb, sheep, goat or bull. In Hebrews 9:22 we read: In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Once they were purified for worship they worshiped at a special place in the center of their community called the Tabernacle. The heart of the Tabernacle was a room called the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place. The heart of the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant. The lid of the Ark of the covenant was the Mercy Seat. The plans for this tabernacle were given by God in great detail.

I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them. You must make this Tabernacle and its furnishings exactly according to the plans I will show you.
Exodus 25:8-9 (NLT)

They were to follow these details with accuracy. This accuracy was very important because the tabernacle was an earthly copy of the Tabernacle in heaven.

Their work is connected with a mere earthly model of the real tabernacle in heaven; for when Moses was getting ready to build the tabernacle, God warned him to follow exactly the pattern of the heavenly tabernacle as shown to him on Mount Sinai.
Hebrews 8:5 (TLB)

The Tabernacle was a model of the throne room of God and the Mercy Seat was His throne! The only person that was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place was the High Priest. All of these laws and all of the ritualistic cleaning and all of the sacrificial blood had a purpose. It was so that the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies where more blood was sprinkled so that God would forgive the people of sin and accept their worship.

To enter the Most Holy Place the High Priest had to go through a curtain or veil. While Jesus was on earth the Law was still in effect. However, the moment he died the Law was fulfilled. Upon His death, the curtain that symbolized the separation between us and God was ripped open from top to bottom.

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. Matthew 27:50, 51 (NIV)

These curtains were over 40 feet high and they were thick. They were torn by God from top to bottom. From that moment on the Holy of Holies, symbolic of God's throne room, was no longer closed off to us. Now, we can approach God with confidence and without fear of being "unclean" because the blood of Jesus was shed for us. No longer do we need the blood of goats, sheep or bulls to be right with God. The blood of Jesus is the only lasting sacrifice required. There is no longer a need for "the Law of Moses" as it has been fulfilled in Jesus. We say that Jesus fulfilled the Law because the purpose of the Law was to gain forgiveness for the people.

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Hebrews 10:19-23 (NIV)

Now, when we believe in this blood of Jesus Christ, we are made clean or righteous by this faith and NOT by observing the Law. If observing the Law made us right with God or righteous, then Jesus would have died for nothing.

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
Galatians 2:21 (NIV)

Since we are righteous or right with God we can freely and with confidence go into His very throne room and He is also free to walk among us.

God's purpose was to show his wisdom in all its rich variety to all the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. They will see this when Jews and Gentiles are joined together in his church. This was his plan from all eternity, and it has now been carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord. because of Christ and our faith in him, we can now come fearlessly into God's presence, assured of his glad welcome.
Ephesians 3:10-12 (NLT)

Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:16 (NIV)

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16(NIV)

You can't believe that Jesus died for you if you are bound by the Law and believe that you are an abomination worthy of death. If you abide by the Law then you are saying that the death of Christ means nothing to you and that is exactly what Satan wants you to believe!!! But we know that "Satan is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)

Romans 6:14 says that we "are no longer under the law but under grace." The concept of grace is very simple. It has nothing to do with what you did or do or will do. The concept of grace has to do with what God has already done and why He did it! You see, God so loved the world (that's you and me) that He gave His one and only Son, Jesus, so that "whosoever" (you and me, again) shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Okay for those that just want the "Cliff Notes" version of my post (and those that think my posts are too long--that's you velochat ), I'll give you the bottom line.

The Law--remember, the first five books of the Bible--was given to us prior to Christ's birth. It's purpose was to tell us how to live our lives to be Godly people. When we failed, the Law told us how to reconcile our sins so that we could commune with God again--through sacrifices of animals or other commodities.

When Christ was sent to the earth by God, Christ's mission was to be the sacrifice for us. Once He was crucified and buried, He paid the price for the sins of everyone. When He was resurrected, He triumphed over death, and allowed all of us who accept His gift (of payment for our sins) to live in Heaven.

The Law as contained in Leviticus and Exodus, et al, may sound corny and obtuse to our "modern" society, but it was relavant and meaningful to society in 100 B.C. We live, on the other hand, in a time where the Lamb has been sacrificed, and we can live according to Romans 6:14.

[SonomaCat]

The Law as contained in Leviticus and Exodus, et al, may sound corny and obtuse to our "modern" society, but it was relavant and meaningful to society in 100 B.C.

I think this was the exact point of the original email/post. That's what made it funny (the juxtaposition of the now repulsive ancient laws and the contemporary Constitutional issue). Thankfully, we don't live in B.C. and have been granted the gift of reason with the passage of time.

['93HonoluluCat]

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
The Law as contained in Leviticus and Exodus, et al, may sound corny and obtuse to our "modern" society, but it was relavant and meaningful to society in 100 B.C.

BAC wrote:
I think this was the exact point of the original email/post. That's what made it funny (the juxtaposition of the now repulsive ancient laws and the contemporary Constitutional issue). Thankfully, we don't live in B.C. and have been granted the gift of reason with the passage of time.

But I didn't take it that way. I took it as a maligning and ridiculing of the only thing more important to me than my family--my faith.

(by the way, how do you get the quote boxes to come up saying "'93HonoluluCat wrote"? All I can get is "Quote" to appear...

['93HonoluluCat]

Somehow I can't edit my post, so you'll have to bear with my extra posting:

BAC wrote:
Thankfully, we don't live in B.C. and have been granted the gift of reason with the passage of time.

It's not the gift of reason that has allowed the Law to become obsolescent in many cases--it's the gift of grace that justifies our sin that allows us to live freer lives.

The catch--one has to actually accept the gift for it to be valid.

[Grizomatic]

BAC,

I found your initial post to be highly amusing, and I'm not disappointed in the least. [/b]

[SonomaCat]

Somehow I can't edit my post, so you'll have to bear with my extra posting:

BAC wrote:
Thankfully, we don't live in B.C. and have been granted the gift of reason with the passage of time.

It's not the gift of reason that has allowed the Law to become obsolescent in many cases--it's the gift of grace that justifies our sin that allows us to live freer lives.

The catch--one has to actually accept the gift for it to be valid.

This is where we differ on a fundamental level -- I don't believe that we have to kneel down and worship anyone/anything in order to have freedom -- I believe we are born with it. It's a lot easier to be a free thinker and not manipulated by others or by institutions with ulterior motives that way.

As to getting the quote box stuff to work, I just hit the quote button on the post I am quoting and it does it for me. I don't type a lot of html stuff since it usually confuses me.

[velochat]

It was obviously a good and provocative post that BAC made. It shows we have made progress. Women and other minorities (in the disempowered sense) have more rights and equality. Certainly not enough progress has been made, and some would re-institute discrimination in search of the "good old days" (when we might all have been executed following an inquisition for speaking freely). Fundamentalists of all stripes try to turn back the clock and ignore new knowledge, which is their right. But their rights (and morality) end where others are harmed.

We would all do well to reflect on the golden rule.

[SonomaCat]

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
The Law as contained in Leviticus and Exodus, et al, may sound corny and obtuse to our "modern" society, but it was relavant and meaningful to society in 100 B.C.

BAC wrote:
I think this was the exact point of the original email/post. That's what made it funny (the juxtaposition of the now repulsive ancient laws and the contemporary Constitutional issue). Thankfully, we don't live in B.C. and have been granted the gift of reason with the passage of time.

But I didn't take it that way. I took it as a maligning and ridiculing of the only thing more important to me than my family--my faith.

(by the way, how do you get the quote boxes to come up saying "'93HonoluluCat wrote"? All I can get is "Quote" to appear...

That's the danger of mixing politics and religion (and this bad is on Bush, not the post). When people mock Kerry, that may well upset people who believe strongly in Kerry's policies and ideas, but nobody declares that people shouldn't do it -- it's just accepted as part of that whole freedom of speech thing. But when Bush makes his religion a part of public policy, and people ridicule it, those who share that religion act like it should be taboo to do so, which is simply inconsistent, and oftentimes, hypocritical.

If somebody was going out of their way to ridicule someone's personal and private faith that helps them live their own life to its fullest potential, that's one thing (bad). But when that faith becomes a centerpiece of a political issue, all bets are off. In that context, satire aimed at Bush's religious beliefs (especially in this case) is no different than a joke about Kerry's flip flops. I'm all for keeping religion out of politics altogether. If you want to lose your virginity in terms of saying something non-positive about Bush, this could be your first opportunity -- you could criticize him for opening your faith up to this political satire.

The separation of church and state -- we see yet another reason for it to be firmly respected. Without it, every aspect of religion is going to be open to public debate as political leaders try to press their religious views on our country in the form of silly laws codifying their relgious beliefs. That's not religion -- that politics and that's a power play, and there will be a lot of criticism of both the politicians and the religion guiding them.