The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

An interesting forward from a good friend.

DarthMonk

> Hello all you pious God-fearing Faithful out there (namely, Jill &
> Paul) -- here's some news from on High. It's good to keep all this in
> mind, to fuel future arguments about what clothes one MUST NOT
> wear.....etc.. etc. Happy trails --


> Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
> October 2002

> Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to
> people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
> observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
> Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
> following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast
> resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
> informative:

> Dear Dr. Laura:

> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
> have learned a great deal from your show, and 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.
> I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
> specific laws and how to follow them:
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
> period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how
> do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
> Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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, so I am confident
> you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
> eternal and unchanging.
>
> Your devoted fan,
> Jim
>
> Note to Stumblers:
>
> Some comments criticizing this piece indicate that it was "hijacked"
> from a West Wing episode. This is a chicken and egg argument in my
> opinion. I don't really know which came first, and frankly don't care.
> Below, for your enjoyment, is the clip in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Why dismantle a joke? Where's the fun in that, 'bru? It's meant to be funny, but it is germane to any discussion centered around religion as a sustainable truth. The "word of God" is the "word of God", and cannot be edited by a mere mortal. What was good for the goose 2000 years ago is good for the modern day gander, IMHO.
It's all BS anyway.

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Go for it. I'm interested.

P.S. - 2 good ones from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version)

Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version)

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

DarthMonk

Leviticus just doesn't effect me at all. I can't even relate. It was written so long ago in a dead language that it has no bearing today that I can see. It is a joke today but law way back then.

DarthMonk wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Go for it. I'm interested.

Timeless truths communicated in different contexts can appear disparate and sometimes even irreconcilable. Instead of citing these cases without context, why not ask what was going on there and why it was?

(BTW, do you really think there has been three millennia of intense study and commentary on these texts and somehow no one, you know, noticed this stuff? For people who are interested in answers, they aren't hard to find. . .)

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

AMEN brother.....

DarthMonk wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Go for it. I'm interested.

P.S. - 2 good ones from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version)

Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version)

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

DarthMonk

Poor Darth. The King James interpretation was literal, and did not account for subtleties in the language. "Thou shalt not kill" would have been more accurately interpreted "Thou shalt not commit murder".

2 good ones, you say? No. While there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible, this is not one of them.

Darth, I'll help you out and give you another one to chew on. Two authors of the Bible appear to conflict on a pretty important issue: John says that no one has ever seen God (John ch1) and Paul says that God has been clearly seen by all since the foundation of the world (Romans ch1).

Maybe there's a little more to it than wooden, literal readings. . .

I wouldn't rattle IB's cage too much on this.

I never considered the bible to be a single author book.
More like a collection of short fiction stories.

tcwest10 wrote:I never considered the bible to be a single author book.
More like a collection of short fiction stories.

Some things about the Bible can be proven correct scientifically. For example, archeologists use it as a map when they dig up certain sites. The other thing is it was a form of government so it the Bible and church needed to control the mass or total chaos is what we would have had. Leviticus is just crazy. I am certainly no expert but I know there are many contradictions.

I've seen enough and read enough to know that the bible is a mixture of history, metaphorical text. There are certainly things that have been scientifically proven and its up to the reader as to whether you believe it was natural phenomenon or driven by a higher force. The Naked Archaeologist Simcha Jacobovici did an excellent documentary called Exodus Decoded with James Cameron that explains all of the plagues and even the parting of the Reed Sea, connecting it with the eruption of Santarini.

Of course, all of the religious zealots call him a kook, and all of the scientists that want to call it a myth think he uses circular logic by creating his proof from suppositions he's made, but it is all very plausible.

What people on both sides don't get is that even if this is scientifically proven to be what happened, it doesn't prove whether there is a god driving it, or a random natural phenomenon.

Discussing religion makes people too up-tight.

Kilmer, you're reading my mind. I, too, believe it was initially a crowd control tool to try and rein in the raping, pillaging and plundering and general stupidity by making people think there was an invisible man in the sky watching everything they do, and sitting in judgment of their actions.
George Carlin most closely articulated my thoughts on the whole deal.
I further believe Santa is the children's version of the same tool, with lesser long-term consequences.
The whole thing is just nonsense.

Countertrey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Go for it. I'm interested.

P.S. - 2 good ones from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version)

Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version)

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

DarthMonk

Poor Darth. The King James interpretation was literal, and did not account for subtleties in the language. "Thou shalt not kill" would have been more accurately interpreted "Thou shalt not commit murder".

2 good ones, you say? No. While there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible, this is not one of them.

This and other comments kind of make my point for me - don't take it literally unless you are going to take it all literally. As for:

(BTW, do you really think there has been three millennia of intense study and commentary on these texts and somehow no one, you know, noticed this stuff? For people who are interested in answers, they aren't hard to find. . .)

the answer is "No, I don't think so" But there have clearly been 3 millenia of people ignoring what they don't want to see and paying attention to the stuff that suits their needs.

DarthMonk

Literature can be interpreted in more than one way. I believe this is a good example to prove it.

As noted previously, it's tough to quote one liners from something that was written more than a thousand years ago. Societies, beliefs, and life in general was completely different. To get an accurate feel for the context of any literature, you have to have knowledge of all of this.

DarthMonk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Just another jaded internet meme. . .this thing has been circulating on the net for like 15 years. It takes about 30 seconds of critical thought to dismantle. . .

Go for it. I'm interested.

P.S. - 2 good ones from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 5:17 (King James Version)

Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version)

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

DarthMonk

Poor Darth. The King James interpretation was literal, and did not account for subtleties in the language. "Thou shalt not kill" would have been more accurately interpreted "Thou shalt not commit murder".

2 good ones, you say? No. While there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible, this is not one of them.

This and other comments kind of make my point for me - don't take it literally unless you are going to take it all literally. <snip>

DarthMonk

No, Darth, you point, quite clearly, was that the Bible is full of inconsitencies, and this was your effort to demonstrate one of them. My point is, while there are plenty of inconsistencies, this is not one of them. We do, however, agree on the nature of the bulk of the writing in the Bible... a portion is historical... but much is metaphorical. It cannot be viewed literally... except by the metaphorically impaired...

Countertrey wrote:No, Darth, you point, quite clearly, was that the Bible is full of inconsitencies, and this was your effort to demonstrate one of them. My point is, while there are plenty of inconsistencies, this is not one of them. We do, however, agree on the nature of the bulk of the writing in the Bible... a portion is historical... but much is metaphorical. It cannot be viewed literally... except by the metaphorically impaired...

No, Countertry - my point - which only I can know - is that the Bible should not be taken literally. Now if you want to phrase that in some other way - go ahead. If your last comment concerns the "Thou shalt not kill" line then this is a PERFECT example to illustrate MY point while it may NOT be an example of what you call an inconsistency. Taking that one ("Thou shalt not kill") literally gets one into trouble when they try to take "smite" and "destroy" literally.

DarthMonk