President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws and how best to follow them

[ODShowtime]

President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws and how best to follow them

Dear President Bush:

11/26/04 "ICH" -- 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 to 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 (Leviticus15.19-24). 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. (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus.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 Leviticus19.27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 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? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 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.

Yours truly,
An Inquiring Supporter

P.S. I look forward to your answers because there are a number of other issues that I'd like to get settled as soon as you've enlightened me on these ... Thanks again.

I think we've already beat these pretty good, but I like having them all in one place.

[aesop]

This is all the 'Old Covenant'. Christ's coming did away with the need for most of these things (sacrifices, etc.). This is lame. If you want to be an ass pirate, I can speak on behalf of God to say "knock yourself out".

After your thoroughly shagged out from hitting the hershey highway, why don;t you relax and actually read the Bible or at least a decent Theology book, instead of cut & pasting this stupid quote that's been on the net for years.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by aesop
This is all the 'Old Covenant'. Christ's coming did away with the need for most of these things (sacrifices, etc.). This is lame. If you want to be an ass pirate, I can speak on behalf of God to say "knock yourself out".


Dude, YOU have NO credibility when it comes to history! I thought you would know better than to even reply to me with your little fables.

I shared this piece to point out the hypocrisy inherent when using the bible as a policy guide. Anything more than espousing the golden rule and you're full of shit. And our country doesn't even follow the golden rule. More of a 'fuck them before they can fuck you' mentality.

[FORD]

Those who blindly follow George Bush Jr and the likes of Falwell & Robertson have no business telling others to read a Bible which none of the above have read, much less used as a guidebook for living.

[aesop]

So reacting to 9/11 was pro-active? How about the '93 embassy bombing? USS Cole? What if you were the president, and the presidents of Russia and Turkey, along with Prime Minister Blair and your own CIA told you that Iraq had Weaopns of Mass Destruction that they intended to use? You certainly couldn't sit back and do nothing! That'd be grounds for impeachement. Derrilection of duty. Kerry said he would've done the same thing! It turned out to be bad info. Deal with it. It wasn't Bush's fault.

You need to read some un-"revised" history books, and stop feeding your fear of Christianity. Jefferson's phrase "sepatation of church and state" does not appear in any government document. Anywhere. Period. Not the Bill of Rights, not the US Constitution. Not the Declararion of Independence. And he meant it in terms of fear that the Goernment would restrict people's rights to religious expression, not fear that that the government would rule according to Christianity. Read this for starters:
http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html

[aesop]

Originally posted by FORD
Those who blindly follow George Bush Jr and the likes of Falwell & Robertson have no business telling others to read a Bible which none of the above have read, much less used as a guidebook for living.

Ford, Falwell does not represent most people who believe in a "God" so drop the stereotyping.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by aesop
So reacting to 9/11 was pro-active? How about the '93 embassy bombing? USS Cole? What if you were the president, and the presidents of Russia and Turkey, along with Prime Minister Blair and your own CIA told you that Iraq had Weaopns of Mass Destruction that they intended to use? You certainly couldn't sit back and do nothing! That'd be grounds for impeachement. Derrilection of duty. Kerry said he would've done the same thing! It turned out to be bad info. Deal with it. It wasn't Bush's fault.

You need to read some un-"revised" history books, and stop feeding your fear of Christianity. Jefferson's phrase "sepatation of church and state" does not appear in any government document. Anywhere. Period. Not the Bill of Rights, not the US Constitution. Not the Declararion of Independence. And he meant it in terms of fear that the Goernment would restrict people's rights to religious expression, not fear that that the government would rule according to Christianity. Read this for starters:
http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html


I don't know who the hell you are talking to, but it doesn't seem like it's me. And like I said, I do not need any history lessons from you of all people!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by aesop
What if you were the president, and the presidents of Russia and Turkey, along with Prime Minister Blair and your own CIA told you that Iraq had Weaopns of Mass Destruction that they intended to use?

I don't know what was said in Turkey and Russia but the public enquiry here showed that our equivalent of the CIA NEVER said such a thing to Blair.

[aesop]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I don't know who the hell you are talking to, but it doesn't seem like it's me. And like I said, I do not need any history lessons from you of all people!

Why are you answering, then?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by aesop
Why are you answering, then?

ya got me there:confused:

[aesop]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't know what was said in Turkey and Russia but the public enquiry here showed that our equivalent of the CIA NEVER said such a thing to Blair.

Sesh -

Why did Blair get on board with W then? I'm just curious to hear a Brit's perspective.

[FORD]

Originally posted by aesop
Sesh -

Why did Blair get on board with W then? I'm just curious to hear a Brit's perspective.

Let's put it this way.... I've heard that BP is known as "Blair Petroleum" on the other side of the pond.

[Warham]

Bush hasn't tried to educate people regarding God's law, Bush is not a minister, priest, or clergyman. This so-called letter is flawed from the first sentence. If the man needs these questions answered, he should go to the nearest church.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush hasn't tried to educate people regarding God's law, Bush is not a minister, priest, or clergyman. This so-called letter is flawed from the first sentence. If the man needs these questions answered, he should go to the nearest church.

The original post is actually an adaptation of a letter written to the hypocritical porn star and mother of a woman beating asshole, "Dr" Laura Schleshinger, who based her entire justification for homophobia on "God's Law" in Leviticus.

I imagine it was recently attributed for Junior because he thought it was neccessary to write homophobia into the Constitution.

[Nickdfresh]

I have to admit, Dr. Laura was kind of hot when she was young, and naked.

[Cathedral]

Don't listen to anyone at all, don't ask anyone anything at all.
Just seek a "personal" relationship with God and go from there.

I myself don't follow anyone when it comes to faith issues, and i go to church to worship, not fall in line with what corpoarate church has going on.

Lean not to your own understanding, if you seek the Lord he will guide you...it's actually that simple.

And if you choose not to believe in God, that is your decision to make.

I'm not a preacher, I'm a sinner, and I, as many, fall short of his grace.

Bottom line, Opinions are like assholes and everybody has one. Make up your own mind and remember that "Free Will" is a double edged sword.
I refuse to ever get involved with any more faith based discussions, and if i do, you'll see this post repeated, lol.

[Warham]

Why is being against gay marriage make you a homophobe?

A homophobe is a person who hates or is scared of gays and everything they stand for. You can be a person who has gay friends and family, loves them, and STILL believe gay marriage is not right.

Bush is trying to head off those liberal activist judges at the pass. Perhaps he is going for the jugular too soon.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Don't listen to anyone at all, don't ask anyone anything at all.
Just seek a "personal" relationship with God and go from there.



The world would be a much better place if people actually did that!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The world would be a much better place if people actually did that!

Amen to that, and if people looked more into themselves rather than some guy standing on a pulpit, there would be a lot less Millionaire Evangelist Preachers taking their money and giving God a bad name that nobody can have faith in.

Ooops, I said way more than i wanted to, lol.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Why is being against gay marriage make you a homophobe?

A homophobe is a person who hates or is scared of gays and everything they stand for. You can be a person who has gay friends and family, loves them, and STILL believe gay marriage is not right.

Bush is trying to head off those liberal activist judges at the pass. Perhaps he is going for the jugular too soon.

Only a hate filled person would want the Constitution of the United States ammended to take someone's rights away.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Why is being against gay marriage make you a homophobe?

A homophobe is a person who hates or is scared of gays and everything they stand for. You can be a person who has gay friends and family, loves them, and STILL believe gay marriage is not right.

Bush is trying to head off those liberal activist judges at the pass. Perhaps he is going for the jugular too soon.

What about "civil unions?" Gays don't deserve the same rights of property and personal choice that you and I have? I think it is an issue of personal liberty that should be handled by the states and not the federal government.

[Warham]

I didn't say anything about civil unions.

I personally believe gays should be allowed to have civil unions. That's about the only thing John Kerry and I agreed on.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws and how best to follow them

Dear President Bush:

11/26/04 "ICH" -- 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 to 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 (Leviticus15.19-24). 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. (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus.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 Leviticus19.27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 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? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 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.

Yours truly,
An Inquiring Supporter

P.S. I look forward to your answers because there are a number of other issues that I'd like to get settled as soon as you've enlightened me on these ... Thanks again.

I think we've already beat these pretty good, but I like having them all in one place.

So many people are going to hell. :p

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Warham
I didn't say anything about civil unions.

I personally believe gays should be allowed to have civil unions. That's about the only thing John Kerry and I agreed on.

So, what if non-Christians were the only ones allowed to get married and all Christians were made to had civil unions. I bet then you'd change your stance on civil unions. What purpose does it serve? How does it effect you personally by letting gays have the same rights? Just wondering.

I'm still in favor of abolishing government sanctioned marriage since the majority gets to abuse someone's civil liberties when they feel like it. There's just no good reason for it.

[Warham]

Where did Christians come into play here? I never said anything about Christians, did I? If all Christians ever knew were civil unions, so be it.

[FORD]

What Pinky says makes a lot of sense here. Let's make all of the legal arrangements into civil unions, with the exact same rights for any couple, straight or gay. The churches, synagogues, mosques, Elvis drive through chapels and whatever would be free to set their own policies regarding ceremonies.

No fucking with the Constitution neccessary.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Warham
Where did Christians come into play here? I never said anything about Christians, did I? If all Christians ever knew were civil unions, so be it.

I was just making a comparison. Don't play the persecution card. ;)

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by FORD
What Pinky says makes a lot of sense here. Let's make all of the legal arrangements into civil unions, with the exact same rights for any couple, straight or gay. The churches, synagogues, mosques, Elvis drive through chapels and whatever would be free to set their own policies regarding ceremonies.

No fucking with the Constitution neccessary.

I meant getting government out of it entirely. There's always room for abuses like we see today as long as they're involved. But, civil unions for all, right now would be better than nothing.

[Warham]

Alright, we'll just get rid of marriages and civil unions altogether.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
I was just making a comparison. Don't play the persecution card. ;)

Who's being persecuted? You brought it up.

[Pink Spider]

Privatization of marriage is a good thing. What could be no ones business more than what two consenting adults (or 5 as in polygamy, go crazy!) getting married?

[Warham]

I guess we could just let our society degenerate back to the stone ages.

[Pink Spider]

So, having more freedom in marriage is a return to the stone age?

Better to be in the stone age than the dark age.

[Warham]

How far are you willing to go to allow people to have 'freedom' to do whatever they want? In the privacy of their own home, that is.

[Pink Spider]

As long as it involves consenting adults, very far. The government can go fuck themselves if they ever get over the taboo of it. :)

[Warham]

So you would think it's ok for twenty people to get married to each other?

[aesop]

Originally posted by FORD
Only a hate filled person would want the Constitution of the United States ammended to take someone's rights away.

There is no right - God-given or Govenment given - to be a homo, homo.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Warham
So you would think it's ok for twenty people to get married to each other?

It's none of my business.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
It's none of my business.

Ah, ah, ah...I asked you if that would be fine by your standards, not if it's any of your business who does it.

[Pink Spider]

Why do my standards matter to you? I'm an open minded individual. As long as no one's getting hurt, I don't see problems with things like the moral reactionists do. So, yes its fine with me.

[Warham]

Ok, so if let's say three of the twenty want a divorce, how would you decide how to divide the property amongst the parties? This would include all savings and 401k accounts, as well as all material possessions like the house, furniture, children, etc? This would be if you were the judge, of course.

[Warham]

And this doesn't even bring into consideration child custody and visitation rights.

[FORD]

Originally posted by aesop
There is no right - God-given or Govenment given - to be a homo, homo.

Jefferson said that all of us were endowed with the God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If two gay guys are happy plugging each other in the ass, what business is it of yours, or George Bush's or Jerry "blow em all away in the name of Jesus" Falwell's??

[Warham]

Nobody is stopping two guys from plugging each other...they just don't want 'em getting married.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Warham
Ok, so if let's say three of the twenty want a divorce, how would you decide how to divide the property amongst the parties? This would include all savings and 401k accounts, as well as all material possessions like the house, furniture, children, etc? This would be if you were the judge, of course.


I don't have ALL of the answers. ;)

If we're talking about after the abolishment of legal marriage, you just take your shit and get out. :p

Actually, I suppose you could divide everything up fairly. Dividing between 2 and 20 people isn't anything but numbers. Kids would be easy, it's only possible to have 2 biological parents...so far.

[Warham]

It ain't easy with TWO people getting a divorce, let alone twenty!

What if all twenty adults want to adopt a child, just like two gays? It ain't biological then.

It's nice to think all these wonderful things until you see it in action.

[aesop]

This thread has digressed into sheer stupidity...

[FORD]

This is slightly off the topic, but how hypocritical is the Catholic Church to be against gay marriage?

Here you have men, who wear dresses, and consider themselves "married" to a male God. True, they aren't getting any action (altar boy jokes aside), but it is a same sex marriage, is it not?

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Warham
It ain't easy with TWO people getting a divorce, let alone twenty!

What if all twenty adults want to adopt a child, just like two gays? It ain't biological then.

It's nice to think all these wonderful things until you see it in action.

It's worked before. There are things to work out for sure, but it takes serious thought.

I suppose you could limit the legal guardians as only 2 people to solve the problem.

[aesop]

Originally posted by FORD
Jefferson said that all of us were endowed with the God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If two gay guys are happy plugging each other in the ass, what business is it of yours, or George Bush's or Jerry "blow em all away in the name of Jesus" Falwell's??

Putting plugging someone's ass in the same catagory as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is completely lame. I feel pretty safe in assuming that never crossed Jefferson's mind at the time... I don't think it is therefore the government's job to pave the way for you to legally get a piece of male tail, because that 'makes you soooo happy'.

To me it's an economical, biological, and standard-of-living issue as much as a moral one. The fact that it's even debated is rather stupid.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by aesop
This thread has digressed into sheer stupidity...

Right about....here.


Originally posted by aesop
There is no right - God-given or Govenment given - to be a homo, homo.

[aesop]

Originally posted by FORD
This is slightly off the topic, but how hypocritical is the Catholic Church to be against gay marriage?

Here you have men, who wear dresses, and consider themselves "married" to a male God. True, they aren't getting any action (altar boy jokes aside), but it is a same sex marriage, is it not?

That's fucking sick, dude. Go away.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by aesop
Putting plugging someone's ass in the same catagory as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is completely lame. I feel pretty safe in assuming that never crossed Jefferson's mind at the time...

Perhaps he was too busy fucking slaves to think about it? ;)

[aesop]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Perhaps he was too busy fucking slaves to think about it? ;)

You may be right, there ;) That's a different topic all together. He did manage to fit in a few other things, I seem to recall...

To quote DLR: "Yes, I don't discriminate. I've slept with black women and Chinese women. In fact, I've slept with a black Chinese woman."

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by FORD
This is slightly off the topic, but how hypocritical is the Catholic Church to be against gay marriage?

Here you have men, who wear dresses, and consider themselves "married" to a male God. True, they aren't getting any action (altar boy jokes aside), but it is a same sex marriage, is it not?

Supposedly the Christian god created man in his image, right? I guess that makes sense.

[Pink Spider]

So, if Jesus is the son of God and priests are married to God, wouldn't that make them step-fathers? But, if Jesus and God are one...

I'm confused.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by aesop
Putting plugging someone's ass in the same catagory as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is completely lame. I feel pretty safe in assuming that never crossed Jefferson's mind at the time... I don't think it is therefore the government's job to pave the way for you to legally get a piece of male tail, because that 'makes you soooo happy'.

To me it's an economical, biological, and standard-of-living issue as much as a moral one. The fact that it's even debated is rather stupid.

What are you so afraid of? Why do you care so damn much what they do.

You have no clue about Thomas Jefferson or what he stood for.

[aesop]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What are you so afraid of? Why do you care so damn much what they do.

You have no clue about Thomas Jefferson or what he stood for.

Ummm...OK. I guess your an early american history authority. Well, I'll yield to your expertise.

I am not afraid of anything~ People can do whatever they want in their own homes / appartments/ tents/ cardboard boxes. That's the whole point! All you sheep are brainwashed into thinking they're victims of discrimination. That guys asses are supermagnets for their cocks. They already have the same rights as anyone else born in this country, so what the fuck is the big deal???

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So, if Jesus is the son of God and priests are married to God, wouldn't that make them step-fathers? But, if Jesus and God are one...

I'm confused.

I'm still confused.

If they are also were children of "God", wouldn't they be marrying their own father?

Great. There's something that actually disgusts me. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by aesop
Ummm...OK. I guess your an early american history authority. Well, I'll yield to your expertise.



I never claimed authority status, I'm just sick and tired of the religious right trying to brainwash people that this country was founded as a Christian nation when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Pink Spider]

But, if Jesus is also the son of God and Jesus IS God then they'd be marrying their own brother.

I can't stop thinking about this for some reason. It's a riddle that won't end....

[aesop]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I never claimed authority status, I'm just sick and tired of the religious right trying to brainwash people that this country was founded as a Christian nation when nothing could be further from the truth.

What does that have to do with gay marriage? I think we can agree that Christians are not the only ones who think gay marriage isn't really neccessary...

[Warham]

It's what libs do.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So, if Jesus is the son of God and priests are married to God, wouldn't that make them step-fathers? But, if Jesus and God are one...

I'm confused.

It's an interesting question.

So we are to assume if priests are married to god they must masturbate to images of him. That would explain all of the billions of dollars they've spent on huge cathedrals instead of the poor.

Maybe the priests that lust after alter boys are actually taking a moral decision that it's not as bad as lusting after their own father...

Hmmm

[Jesus Christ]

:rolleyes:

[aesop]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's an interesting question.

So we are to assume if priests are married to god they must masturbate to images of him. That would explain all of the billions of dollars they've spent on huge cathedrals instead of the poor.

Maybe the priests that lust after alter boys are actually taking a moral decision that it's not as bad as lusting after their own father...

Hmmm

:stupid: :tool:

[Seshmeister]

:D