namelesstavern.net

by **Dylan** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:47 pm

Why is it every time I say I'm agnostic in the real world.. someone always says they follow Mithaniel Marr, The Light Bearer?

by **Arlos** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:55 pm

Oh goody, Minidia is basing the anti-homosexual ranting on a prohibition given in Leviticus. Lets look at the Bible, shall we? Lets stick with the King James version, since that's been the standard reference version for a very long time, shall we? OK, sure, in Leviticus 18:22, it does indeed say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." So, it would appear that if we are indeed going strictly by Leviticus, lesbian relationships are NOT covered, and are perfectly OK, it just talks about men screwing men being a big no-no. Remember, we're doing strict reading of the bible here, so no adding clauses or re-interpretations, you gotta go just on the words there, and nothing whatsoever about women-women is mentioned.

Now, lets go through more of Leviticus and see what else is forbidden, shall we?

Well, back when I was in high school and was having to go to Catholic Church (hey, Mindia, Catholics were the ORIGINAL christians. ALL protestant religions are descendants from Catholicism. What do you think "Protestant" comes from? Protesting against statuates of CATHOLIC religion. Martin Luther was a catholic at the time he nailed up his list on the church.), I put some money in the collection plate, thus "bringing an offering unto the LORD". Uh oh, Leviticus 1:2 says that if I want to make an offering, it has to be "of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock." Hrm. Do you think I'm damned for not following Leviticus in this instance? Should I have walked into mass with a cow, instead of 5 bucks? Please help instruct me here.

Uh oh, I just noticed another problem. A few days ago, I had a steak which had some fat on it, and I ate the fat. Oh, and I also recently had a french dip sandwich, with the au jus dip. Unfortunately, according to Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood." And there I went eating both, eek! Actually, they bring up eating fat and/or blood a lot in leviticus, so it must be especially heinous. It's in there 4-5 times, so it must be MUCH worse than sleeping with another guy. So, Mindia, when should I expect the lightning bolt from on high to smote me down for daring to break such a inviolate commandment?

Hrm, reading through more Leviticus, I wonder if god favors butchers, cause there's a TON of clauses on which parts of an animal to cut up and give the priests. Lots of burning fat and kidneys, and which parts to give the priests, etc. Boy, yes, we sure do follow lots of these nowadays. Every church I go into is burning sheep kidneys on the altar, or at least all the TRULY holy ones do, right?

Uh oh, now I'm really in trouble, reading Leviticus 11. Leviticus 11:6 says "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." I've had rabbit before. Hrm. Now, Leviticus 11:7 says "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Hrm, I guess those baby-back ribs I had the other night were terribly evil. Yoiks, now we have a TWIN prohibition! Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you" and 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." I've had shrimp and clam before. BOTH of those are an abominations, apparently just as bad as gay sex, another abomination! I must be doomed! DOOMED!

So, Mindia, ever slept in the same bed as a girlfriend who was having a period? You are UNCLEAN, as per Leviticus 15:19! Hrm, anyone ever had a shirt that was made partly of linen and partly of wool? That too is forbidden, as per Leviticus 19:19! Hrm, Anyone shaped their beard? That is FORBIDDEN by 19:27! Know anyone who's slept around on their spouse? Did you stone them to death? Why not, you were supposed to, as per Leviticus 20:10, why did you fail in your duty? Ever heard someone swear at "the LORD"? According to Leviticus 24:16 you're supposed to take them out and stone them. Why didn't you?

Ooooh, it says I can have slaves, as long as they're heathen, in Leviticus 25:44. Where do you think I might get some? Do you think the authorities might object to me buying slaves, even heathen ones? If they do, shouldn't they stop objecting once I show them that passage in leviticus? Do you own any, since you're allowed?

So hrm, that's an awful lot of Leviticus rules we're not following these days. What makes those non-followed statuates any different from the homosexuality statute? What gives YOU the right to decide which of those you will and won't follow? Why then do you pick that ONE restriction to try and enforce over all others, other than personal reasons? Aren't you being an awful christian for not following those other restrictions, since by your own statements following Leviticus is absolutely vital? Why should any of us listen to your pontificating and ranting when you're obviously cherry-picking statutes that you will and won't follow?

-Arlos

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:35 pm

Arlos - you're 100% correct. There are many rules that are horribly out of context today.

Christ also told us that we are to follow the laws and rules of our government as if they were his own. There are many MODERN laws that are nearly equally invalid...

The governments and the Church leadership all try to update laws to match what is appropriate and valid for the day and age. The food prohibitions were already discarded in the New Testament... most of the other rules as well - and then the Church leadership in the various Council's and Papal writs changed many others in the first millenia of Christianity's existence.

Why did they choose to not revoke the Biblical laws governing homosexuality then? Beats me - the Church leadership felt that this rule remained valid and that God's direction was for it to be continued to be enforced. Since I admitedly don't pray (unless I find myself looking down the barrel of a gun or about to fail a certification test) I can't say that I know better what God demands and desires than the leadership of the Church who have devoted their lives to it. My guess is your bat-phone to God isn't exactly operational right now either.

So what does this mean? Who's right? Who's wrong?

My opinion on the subject is that religious creeds should NOT adapt themselves to the popular opinion of the day... the leadership of the Church have the duty of striving to make the religion exist in a manner by which God would be pleased. If the Church had a desire to be "popular" they would adopt every whimsical desire of their patrons - but it's not about that... it's about doing what they believe to be right in God's eyes - not your neighbor's.

So, if you wish to call yourself a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Sikh... then you accept the rules of that religion. They're all well documented and shouldn't be any surprise to any adult wishing to practice the religion. People that believe that religions should change to suit their "beliefs" are at odds with their religion and should strive to find a religion that more closely matches what's in their minds and hearts.

Christianity isn't for everyone... neither is atheism or any other belief system. Who is ultimately right? We'll see when we're dead, I guess... till then, people will have faith that the religion they follow is "right" and that by doing what is prescribed of them that they shall earn their rewards.

You and others who state that religion is "wrong" or for the "weak" are only following the rules of your own self-ascribed atheism or agnositicism.... I don't blame you - but I do find your hypocritical attacks on people with other beliefs to be tiresome. If you're allowed to preach YOUR religion (or the lack thereof) why may someone else not preach their own?

Sorry for the long post.

by **Thon** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:53 pm

you're completely shooting yourself in the foot here.

'modern' laws, dealing with everday things, classified into felonies, misdeamenors, etc are very different from those found in the bible. secular law doesn't claim to be the law of god, inspired by the divine.

how can some parts of the bible be outdated? i thought the bible was supposed to be written by people 'infused' with the holy spirit. how can this work of an omnipotent omniscient God become obsolete?

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:55 pm

If God told the jews - thou shalt not shoot each other with guns, the Jews would have not understood. God speaks to us each in a manner by which we can best understand his words and intent.

The Bible was written in the manner and spoke to the concepts familiar to the people of that day - not today.

I'm not shooting myself in the foot - but I *AM* giving you a loophole.

by **Thon** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:16 pm

you call it loophole, i call it contradiction

if this god was truly all powerful and all knowing then how could the bible become outdated at all? or why havn't we been given a new updated version? even Bill Gates gives us a new operating system every few years.

the evidence overwhelmingly supports that either God has abandoned us like an old toy, or never existed.

by **Dylan** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:18 pm

All seeing, not all knowing, ha I found a loophole in your plan, biatch.

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:32 pm

I don't see the contradiction at all.

How could God speak to the Jews about the technology or the issues involved with 6 billion people?

Naturally topics in the Bible will be outmoded... how does this prove that God isn't omniscient? Remember - the Bible was purportedly written by men at the inspiration of God. With the exceptions of the books of Daniel and Revelation, they were written in the language and the setting of their modern day... if God had written it directly and the texts had mysteriously appeared on the altar of some Church for us, would it be different? Beats the crap out of me - but I'd hazard to say that it would be.

Trying to use the Bible to disprove God's existence is kind of ironic.

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:48 pm

Ugzug sez:

"Since I admitedly don't pray (unless I find myself looking down the barrel of a gun or about to fail a certification test)"

Typical self serving, faux moral, hypocrital, piece of shit "christian". If there really IS a higher power lets not pray for things like ending world hunger or stopping things like that guy shooting his 7 children and 2 of their mothers in Fresno. Lets pray to help us pass a fucking test. That's what's important in life afterall.

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:52 pm

Where did I ever claim to be a good Christian, Tossica? Find me one thread on any message board you like where I stated anything about MY personal beliefs and what religion I practice.

Once again, you step in, spew rhetoric totally useless to the discussion.

Go away and let the grown ups talk.

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:54 pm

You say you pray when you are fucked. You are a christian when it's convenient. From your own words.

by **Arlos** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:55 pm

Actually, Ugzugz, I don't do any promotion of my own personal religion here. Contrary to popular belief, I'm neither agnostic or atheist, not at all. I am (I think) a reasonably devoted follower of my religion of choice. That just doesn't happen to be Christianity, even after 16+ years of indoctrination into Catholicism. (Yes, I went to lots of sunday school, and have read the bible cover to cover, I just happen to think most of it is utter rubbish.)

So, when I slam on christianity, I'm not doing it out of a desire to promote secular humanism, atheism, whatever. I'm merely poking holes in, and revealing some of the huge logical flaws in the argued belief structure of christians. After all, if you're going to base your arguments on the bible, you better have a damn good counter-argument for other bible passages that disagree with you, or as to why you are cherry-picking rules and regulations that you want to follow, as compared to others that you don't.

If the point is to follow leviticus, why is homosexuality somehow far more worse than eating squid? Both are "abominations", yes? The obvious answer is that it is the PERSONAL feelings of those condemning homosexuality that are involved here, NOT scripture. How then is it ANY different than someone espousing descrimination based on race/skin color, when it is obviously just as much based onpersonal feelings as is racism? If you've been going around advocating stoning people to death for having the Calamari plate, I might have more respect for the "scripture"argument. I would also probably think you were a dangerous loon that needed to be put in a padded cell.

-Arlos

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:02 pm

But Arlos - the "laws" of the Bible have been adapted over time... very specifically the dietary laws.

The Church has decided not to change the law on homosexuality. It's not a personal preference or opinion of the people posting here - it's the rules of the Church.

I too was raised Catholic and have chosen to leave that religion behind in favor of other things. I, obviously, received all the indoctrination they could feed me - or, to look at it another way, I educated myself on what the religion was about so as to make myself knowledgable enough to make decisions for myself.

I don't focus my inquisitiveness solely on one text... I look to all sources of a religion's creed and beliefs... in the examples and discussion we're having you would also need to be familiar with all number of other sources - all of which are publicly available on the web.

Laws can be changed - and the Church states that they makes these changes at the guidance of God. My point before was that since I don't have the "bat phone" - I can't state that they are definitively wrong... but the fact is that they have NOT changed the laws on homosexuality over the last many 1000s of years - and they HAVE changed others.

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:04 pm

Tossica - I pray when I feel the need to do so. The examples I used where just that - examples. Frankly, judge me all you like... your opinion means little to nothing in this discussion. You're responding to this thread just to try to turn this into a personal flame and this is my last response to you in this thread till you can grow up and participate like an adult.

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:41 pm

Hahahaha. I've been dismissed by Ugzug!

Eat a dick.

I point out your blatant hypocrisy and you play like you are above personal flames. Give me a break.

You LOVE passing judgement on others. Looking down on others from your moral high horse is the only way you can feel good about your pathetic existence.

Instead of worrying what the fags down the street are doing, why don't you spend some time thinking about your own life. Start with why it is that you only pray when it's to save your own sorry ass. Sounds pretty convenient to have that omnipotent, higher power all to yourself.

I guess that's what I have found to be the biggest difference between the right and left. The "moral" right use the bible and the protection of "family values" and other faux moral trite to push through and maintain hate and prejudice legislation while the so called "immoral" liberals actually give a shit about their fellow human beings.

by **Thon** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:44 pm

fyi - the dyke pastor got acquited

How could God speak to the Jews about the technology or the issues involved with 6 billion people?

who's talking about technology? the laws he was talking about deal with guys ass fucking guys and not eating fat.

if these laws were meant to be ignored at a certain date, why include them? why didn't the omniscient god say, "thou shalt not eat fat, untill tuesday, 2.5 millenia from now".

Trying to use the Bible to disprove God's existence is kind of ironic.

now i realize logic is something that eludes those who believe in the bible, in fact that is almost a requirement.

but if the bible is the 'proof' of an allmighty god, then showing how idiotic it is helps to disprove the existence of said god

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:54 pm

I've already stated how the laws can and were changed by the Church in the centuries after Christ... scroll up if you need to.

"thou shalt not eat fat, untill tuesday, 2.5 millenia from now

And what exactly do you think their response would have been? What if someone told YOU that you can't drive faster than 65 mph till the year 4500AD... would you even consider worrying or thinking about it? Would you not be confused?

believe in the bible

I'm pretty sure it exists... seen lots of them in my life... if what you mean is that I believe every story in the Bible - that's a different issue all together. My *personal* opinion is that the Bible is full of about 25% history, 25% conjecture, and 50% parable. Many events outlined in the Bible have been proven by archaeological record - many many have NOT been... and no, I do not believe then entire Earth was covered in water - but I do believe that there was a message that was more important to that story than whether or not Noah's house got flooded.

And Tossica, yes... you were dismissed... you may go now.

Metranon Metranome · by **Metranon** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:57 pm

Laws can be changed - and the Church states that they makes these changes at the guidance of God.

how convinient for the church

maybe now that all these priests are getting nailed for molesting children, the church will "hear the guidance of god" and change the law of the bible on homosexuality too

or maybe they just got tired of the kosher menu up in heaven-- I know i'd be pissed if i got there and ordered a steamed lobster and a dry salami sandwich and st. peter said, "sorry sir, no swine or shellfish on the menu at the leviticus cafe"

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm

Hey Met, the church has always just been looking out for the good of the people. Every child needs a good ass raping now and then, right?

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:03 pm

"All" of those priests getting "nailed" for molesting children are facing the consequences of their actions - the Church doesn't condone and never will condone those actions. That whole point is irrelevant to this discussion.

And how is it that the Church can't be allowed to adapt its rules but every other form of institution is?

Fact of the matter is that the Church is run by human beings. Those human beings can make mistakes. Even in this case and the subject of homosexuality - the humans involved in making the laws of the Church at the guidance of God may be misinterpreting his message to them and God very well might want that rule to change.

However, until you, or someone else, finds a better way to commune with God and declare His feelings on the matter, I'm going to have to say that the Church's method is probably the best in place for the moment.

You are all welcome to your opinions about the issue of homosexuality and religion - I'm not in any way, shape, or form trying to dissuade you or "convert" you - I am merely arguing this topic from the position of the Church and stating why the Church's laws are how they are (in my feeble understanding of how their processes exist).

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:06 pm

Ugzug sez:

"Fact of the matter is that the Church is run by human beings. Those human beings can make mistakes. Even in this case and the subject of homosexuality - the humans involved in making the laws of the Church at the guidance of God may be misinterpreting his message to them and God very well might want that rule to change."

Reread what you are writing here man. Is it, or is it not the word of god? If it's the word of god, there will be NO MISTAKES. If it's the word of man then admit it.

by **Langston** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:23 pm

Let's look at it from a different perspective...

When electricity passes through a medium - for example a copper wire - some potential is lost... the resistance of the medium is such as to make it an imperfect conduit for the flow of electrons. There is natural degradation to the "strength" of the charge.

These humans trying to convey God's message are in much the same situtation - they are hampered by the lack of understanding for the vastness of what is a Supreme Being and how that being so far supercedes anything that we can fathom. Naturally, something is lost in the translation. I don't see it being that unreasonable of a concept to accept.

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:25 pm

Haha. Yeah that makes much more sense than "It's people making shit up."

by **Harrison** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:29 pm

Got bored reading all this and would like to end with

Know anyone who's slept around on their spouse? Did you stone them to death? Why not, you were supposed to, as per Leviticus 20:10

I fully support stoning of pieces of shit like that. Why even get married if youre going to forsake the fucking thing anyways? (goes for men and women, Id support stoning either of them)

by **Tossica** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:44 pm

Oh, and to add to that. If god can so easily channel his spirit through man to spread his word, how do we know that he has not been trying to speak to us through prophets all these years? We just write them off as lunatics and conmen! Maybe God has been trying to tell us that being a fag is fine and dandy and you ignorant fucks won't even listen to him!!! Man, if I was god? I would be PISSED!.

namelesstavern.net

Trial begins of lesbian pastor in Washington

Who is online