Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Christianity doesn't even really condemn homosexuality

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
Langley85 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:02 AM
Original message
Christianity doesn't even really condemn homosexuality
Jesus said absolutely nothing about it, and neither do the Ten Commandments. The only places that do are Leviticus, which also says it's immoral to plant corn at a certain time of year, and some words by St. Paul, who says slavery is a normal social practice. So these IDIOTS base their entire existences on hating homosexuals because they think God condemns it, well I don't think so, I think true Christianity as it was meant to be before being perverted and bastardized by these fake sons of a bitch "Christians" is far more condemning of their idiotic hatemongering than of someone's sexual orientation. No one believes slavery is normal, so why do they believe what Paul said about gays? How very convenient. PEOPLE ARE SUCH RETARDS!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aden_nak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Leviticus lists it as an abomination. The same as eating shellfish.
So why aren't these homophobic jackoffs protesting Red Lobster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Face it. We're "icky".
Many people find homosexual activities distateful (male on male especially so). Since you can't really get anywhere by proclaiming something is "icky", you find an obscure passage in the Bible.

I mean, nobody can argue with the Bible right? It says right there in the Bible that the Bible is God's Word, and since the Bible is God's Word, you have to believe what's in the Bible, so if the Bible says it's God's Word... Hang on, I just gave myself a headache.

What is said in Liviticus about homosexuality varies widely on the version. That's why most of the Christian Mafia have seized onto the KJV, it's the most hate-filled.

Don't ever try to raise the paradox that the Bible is God's Word, yet that particular Bible says right on the cover that it's King James' bible rather than God's. They'll yell at you for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Speaking of King James...
"What is said in Liviticus about homosexuality varies widely on the version. That's why most of the Christian Mafia have seized onto the KJV, it's the most hate-filled."

I believe I've heard that King James was supposed to have been gay. Ironic, but not totally surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aden_nak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I've heard he was bisexual, but yes, it's still ironic as all hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Many, many people were
"Buggery" is quite mainstream throughout human history. It wasn't talked about much, because in those times you didn't talk about sex at all - at least not in polite conversation. I suspect the rise of sexual topics in casual conversation helped give rise to the cries of "Ew! Ew! Gross! Cooties!" that lead to our lovely modern tradition of homophobia. That's just my opinion, I certainly haven't made a study of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Not ironic, really
During the writing of the KJV, it is believed that the priests deliberately changed the Leviticus translation because they knew James was gay and they hated him. They were hoping that the new version of the Bible would be enough to dethrone the king. The battle between the Church and the Crown was very bitter at that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladeuxiemevoiture Donating Member (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-02-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. But you know what troubles me about the "icky" argument?
"icky" is so ambiguous - what does that really mean? Does "icky" mean when you do it backdoor style, you get dirty sometimes? if so, doesn't that happen equally whether you're doing a man or J. Lo?

and another thing about icky - some people consider vaginal secretions icky, so icky is subjective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Indeed
Hell, there's a whole horde of activities that I find personally distasteful, many of which fall well within the bounds of accepted behavior. Hickeys are a good example. The "icky" argument isn't supposed to make sense, I just believe it's at least near the core of bible-thumping homophobia (and our antiquated sodomy laws for that matter).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. That's an arly Christian sect called the "Ebionites"
a "heretical sect" in the early days of the Church that maintained that to be a "Christian" one had to follow all of the "Jewish" laws in Leviticus.

Brutally put down by the early Church - who said they were NOT Christians.

Ebionites - I guess - did not eat shell fish or pork.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
32. LOL
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

It's true. God created shrimp so he can hate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoBear Donating Member (781 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. One also wonders
if their women keep silent in their churches and cover their heads (their "crowning glory")? I don't think so. All points to the reason I want nothing to do with Christianity as it's practiced today. I have a friend who's a nun who feels the same way. This is NOT the religion of Jesus. Far from it. If he came back today the Fundies would have him strung up in a matter of hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Picking and choosing is standard practice
I've known at least two self-described "True Christians" that have purposefully torn pages out of their Bibles, and yet still declare it as the undeniable One True Word Of God. Do you really think such people care about what the Bible might actually say? It's a shield, and that's about it.

Quite sad really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Why are these people doing the Marilyn Manson to their Bibles?
How the hell do they justify that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Justify?
That's the whole point, hell that's the beauty of it. Once you've "GOT THA WORD, BROTHAH" you don't need to justify anything anymore. Gone is the need to research, argue, debate, support, or anything else - you brandish your Bible and say "Ha ha I win!".

Dangerously seductive thought process, really. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to be right about EVERYTHING?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. Here's a stretch...
Could "thou shalt not commit adultery" cover homosexual congress?

I consider adultery to be married people having sexual congress with people they're not married to, but plenty of Christians believe any sex between two people who are not married to each other (even if they're not married to anyone else) qualifies as adultery.

Therefore, since in most states homosexuals are not allowed to be married, any congress between two homosexuals qualifies as an adulterous relationship.

And I agree with you: people are such retards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ktowntennesseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. I don't think its a stretch at all; "hit-the-nail-on-the-head" in my book.
According to that bunch, unless you're married to the person on the other side of the bed, it's wrong, wrong, wrong! And if that person has the same genitals as you, it's gross, gross, gross!

Homophobic retards: gotta love 'em!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. I have never heard that theory
I have heard gay sex called fornication, which it technically is, but not aldultery unless one or both partners were married to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. "since in most states homosexuals are not allowed to be married"
What if a gay man married a lesbian and were open about being gay? Would they ban straight marriages too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well, rational people don't hate or condemn gay people...and that's
the point...homophobia is like any other prejuidice...it's not rational, and bigots are not rational people. You can talk until you're blue in the face and make well-reasoned arguments, but they won't budge. Sad to say, there will always be people in this wolrd who hate...the good news is that most people can learn...and we have to focus our attention on bringing those people around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I don't care if I'm hated
Edited on Tue Mar-01-05 10:20 AM by Nimrod
Seriously. As far as I'm concerned, folks can sit around in the privacy of their homes and hate all the homosexuals they want. That's their right, they don't need to be brought around.

I just don't want our rulers to be picked from this camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. Standard practice for hypocrites to alter reality to suit their needs.
The real world has absolutely nothing to do with them and what they do.
Repuke=Hypocrite
http://www.comedyontap.com/features/congress.html

Rush Limbaugh multi married drug addcit
Bill O’Reilly – phone sex
Wm Bennett - gambling
Ralph Reed - Gambling
South Dakota Congressman Wild Bill Janklow speeding, killing someone along the way
Schwarzenegger (a multitude of sins….)
Mehlmen, Dreier, etc - all the closeted, self-loathing gays, who have the nerve to promote anti-gay agendas for the Repukes!!!
Santorum,who maybe among the above, but also lied by living in Va, saying he lived in PA and took tax payer's money to pay for kids' education

Multi married, affairs, etc
Dole, McCain, Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr R-Ga, R. Livingston R-LA

Evangelists caught with prostitutes :
Jim Bakker
the right-wing, gay-hating, prostitute-loving Jimmy Swaggart

A COMPENDIUM OF SEXUAL HYPOCRISY
You know, with all the ink and air time spent commenting on Mr. Clinton's real and alleged sexual improprieties, you would think that the "fair and balanced" media would note the avalanche of GOP and right-wing sex crimes and hypocrisy. I mean it's not like they don't think sex sells. Consider, it's all Kobe all the time now.
Just to get this off my chest, let's list the ones I know about. This is not an exhaustive list because I have a job that does not allow me to track all this stuff down. As Jackson Thoreau said, "There are just too many Republican mistresses and not enough hours in the day.

There's President George Bush accused in a criminal complaint and lawsuit of raping one Margie Denise Schoedinger (who apparently dated Bush years ago when she was a minor) and who is also accused by Tammy Phillips, a former stripper quoted in the National Enquirer in 2000 saying she had an affair with Bush that had ended in 1999. There's the press ignoring extramarital activities by the hypocrites who served on the impeachment committee like Henry Hyde and Bob Barr. And then there's the documented sexual misconduct of Bill Thomas, Bob Livingston, Dick Armey, Dan Burton, Charles Canady, J.C. Watts, Helen Chenoweth, Sue Myrick, Ken Calvert, John Peterson, Dan Crane, Donald Lukens, Jim Gilmore, Scott McInnis and Arlan Stangeland. All Republican hypocrites who attacked Clinton for his affairs and expressed outrage when people put a microscope on their private sexual lives. If you want more, like these randy GOPers, check out the site Congressional Arrest record.
My favorites are Rep. Helen Chenoweth who, during her 1998 campaign, admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate but noted that "I've asked for God's forgiveness, and I've received it," Rep. Joe Scarborough, and, of course, the Newtster.
Remember the non-stop Gary Condit smear campaign? He admits to an affair with Chandra Levy who, when she goes missing, becomes prima facia evidence of murder, much as Hillary is/was accused of offing Vince Foster. No problem with coverage there. But when a dead woman was found in Congressman Joe Scarborough's office, where was the outrage and the non-stop coverage? Now Joe holds forth on his own MSNBC show, lecturing us about the crimes of the Democrats and the bleating the GOP party line.
That paragon of virtue Newt Gingrich is on his third 3 wife now. (God, I don't mean literally, I hope. That image is just too much too imagine.) Gingrich campaign worker Anne Manning admitted that she gave Newt oral sex while he was still married to his first wife. She told Vanity Fair, "we had oral sex. He prefers that because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" Well, where else did we hear that, I wonder. Meanwhile, he dumps his first wife during a visit to the hospital where she is recovering from surgery for breast cancer. Famously, he attributed Susan Smith’s drowning of her children as being due to our “sick system” fostered by the "amoralty" of the Democrats in the White House and then said, "the only way to make it better is to vote Republican.”
Compassionate. Conservative.
But let's not confine ourselves to Congressional Republicans. While we're on the subject of Susan Smith, let's flesh out that story.
Not too much later - although I don’t recall the media pointing this out, Susan Smith’s stepfather publicly apologized to Susan, saying, “You don’t have all the guilt in this tragedy,” because he had molested her early on, then drew her into a full-blown sexual affair later. He knew she was already traumatized by her father’s suicide. As her stepfather, he should have been there FOR her, not there to USE her.
And just who was her stepfather, this man named Beverly Russell? He was a key operative in the South Carolina Republican Party and a Christian Coalition member. Susan testified that one morning after he had been out putting up campaign posters for Pat Robertson for president, he came into her bedroom and put her hand on his genitals and kissed her and fondled her. Later, he made her his full-time sex object.
Then there's Richard Delgaudio. This prominent GOP activist and Bush Pioneer fund-raiser is the head of an array of conservative activist groups. The compassionate conservative helped out a 16-year-old girl who had a baby and dropped out of school, who needed money. Delgaudio paid her for pornographic photo sessions. But then, he continued to raise money without the embarrassment of newspaper stories or non-stop TV coverage from November, 2001, when he was first arrested, until April 23 when he was sentenced after pleading guilty to child pornography.
These GOP leaders seem to have something for pre-pubescent girls. Parker J. Bena, a Virginia GOP activist and Bush elector was indicted and convicted in 2001 for possessing child pornography. Kevin Coan, GOP election official in St. Louis, who found time from altering votes during the 200 election to solicit sex from a 14-year-old girl on the internet. Let's also point out Philip Giordano, the former GOP mayor of Waterbury, who was sentenced to 37 years in prison for soliciting sex with underaged girls.
And, let's not forget Randy Ankeney, rising star in the Colorado GOP circles, who was arrested in 2001 for trying to have sex with a 13-year-old girl he met on Internet. The indictment revealed he warned the girl and her family he’d ruin them if they told anyone. Doesn't that sound familiar? After his arrest, another 17-year-old girl who worked on Ankeney's campaign came forward alleging he sexually assaulted her. In 2002, he pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault of a child.
How about registered GOP hypocrite John Fund, late of the Wall Street Journal, a prominent anti-abortion columnist and fund raiser? He lost his position after it was revealed that he impregnated the daughter of an old girlfriend and then encouraged her to abort his child.
Besides Oxy-Contin addict and uncharged felon Rush, Florida GOP smear radio host Marty Glickman was arrested in 2001 for giving drugs and money to underage girls in exchange for sex. He kept his show spreading lies and denying the charges until he was convicted, taken off the air only because there was no studio in the Palm Beach County Jail.
The moral corruption on the GOP goes so deep that almost anywhere you scratch, the slime comes to the surface, even out of left field. Remember Mary Kay LeTourneau? You know, the teacher who had a compulsive series of affairs with her students and was the object of much tutt-tutting and outrage by the corporate media. Despite court orders prohibiting any further contact, she sacrificed her career, marriage, and her children to this sexually compulsive behavior. Well, her father, John G. Schmitz was an ultra-conservative Republican congressman forced into retirement by the discovery that he had an affair and children with one of his students. Imagine that! It has been alleged, but not proven (or, unsurprisingly, investigated) that Mrs. LeTourneau's her out-of-control sexuality came sexual abuse as a child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Next time someone wants to use the Bible to justify some disgusting
Conservative, Repuke, Gaybashing ideas, send them to
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

There are lots of great points there,taken right from the Bible, to counter those schmucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. During the Civil War the book of Philemon was used as justification
Edited on Tue Mar-01-05 10:25 AM by EVDebs
for slavery despite Exodus' plain use of the word "bondage". The book is about a Christian slave and Christian master being encouraged to reunite (although Paul doesn't say 'free the slave').

Social conditions aside, when the Greatest Commandment is examined, and questions asked and answered, maybe there is a reason why it is not dwelt upon in the NT.

This is not to encourage promiscuity by anyone, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
14. Check this out
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/religiousmenu.htm

click on "The Bible and Homosexuality"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
17. Along these same lines of thought, one of the first debates at Harvard,
originally a school to train clergymen, was on 'premarital relations with your lover, sin or not ?' or something like that. I found that quite charming for that day and age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
20. Gay sex all over Old Testament
Langley, you seem really upset at something but I'm not really sure what, because I didn't read past the fist SCREAM. But, I'd like to add to your statement that the only place in the Bible condemns homosexuality is in Leviticus.

<disclaimer>
I was raised in a Christian home and live by the Golden Rule but reject many of what are popularly viewed as Christianity's tenents. While I am straight, I respect others and don't judge people's personal taste, and wish anyone only happiness in their own love-life.
</disclaimer>

That said, look to your bible stories for fear and loathing of homosexuality. Or, at least some juicy stories.

The first allusion of homosexuality is in the story of Noah's son Ham, who "enjoyed his father's nakedness" once (after the flood) when N. was passed out from wine. Noah was quite upset the next day.

Lot offered his own virginal daughters up to appease a mob outside his door, which was calling for the bums of his (male) angelic visitors. This is the reason Lot was righteous enough to be spared from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jacob's son Joshua was sold into slavery by his brothers and purchased by Pothiphar, a Chief under Egypt's pharoh, 'for a sinful purpose'. (I read that Joseph's 'coat of many colors' was actually the costume of a male prostitute-priest of the fertility cult of Asherah, but that's not in the Bible.)

And let's see, the Benjamites were a whole clan of gays. At Gibeah, a Levite came to his in-laws (or whatever) to claim his concubine, who ran away from him to her parents. A crowd of Benjamites came to rape the *man* but they were given the *concubine* instead, who was abused all night and then left on her father's front doorstep. It could be that she died there because she didn't move when her master (not husband) told her to get up. The Levite took his concubine home across the back of a donkey, then chopped her up into 12 pieces and sent one piece to each tribe of Israel. The tribes waged war (at first not successfully) against the wicked Benjamites in punishment for their crime.

The gold calf that Moses got so upset over was an idol of the cult of Baal, which held orgies as part of worship & fertility rites. Some of the orgies were all-male circle-jerks. (That's not in the Bible either, the Bible just says that Moses found them naked and wicked.)
Moses actually led something of a witchhunt against his people and his neighbors, killing thousands of men who participated in festivals to idols and the immoral sexual practices therein.

I hope this helped your understanding. But wait, there's more. This is just what I can recall off the top of my head!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
21. I disagree
I think the bible clearly condemns homosexuality, and attempts to pretend it doesn't are missing the point.

The question is not whether the Bible condemns homosexuality, but whether it's RELEVANT in this day and age that the Bible does so.

My answer is no, it's not. We are not bound by the social rules of an ancient desert tribe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. we are worthy of death according to Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

of course some bible person will try to say it doesn't say what it says. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-02-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Other instant death sentences
Other items included in that lovely chapter that is a death sentence.

Having sex with a woman on her period. (General death) Having sex with a woman who is ill. (General death) Saying bad things about your mother or father. (Burning) Being a "spiritualist". (Stoning)

And about sixty or seventy more. But just TRY to find a bible-banger willing to quote the rest of that chapter to you. They'll zero in on the fags and try to pretend everything else isn't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. My thoughts on that
I don't think the Bible condemns homosexuality, as much as it condemns homosexual behavior. More importantly, the actual line is thought to refer to ritualized homosexuality (fertility rites) and not homosexual relationships, but that is speculation.

What I have always found VERY interesting, is that Christians state that their covenant with JC "relieves" (can't think of the correct word) them from the laws of the Old Testament. Yet, every time the pull out the anti-gay rhetoric, that is where they go for their "proof." It is just more hypocrisy and their mantra: "Do as I say, not as I do."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-05 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #21
38. I think I may partly agree with you.
The Bible does seem to condemn it. I was raised to believe it did, knew I was a lesbian, and eventually got away from the church because of that issue. Then some of the gay organizations in NC convinced me to try again and believe in a God that loves gay people. It seemed to make matters worse for me. I say if prayers coming from a lesbian to God go unheard, unanswered, or answered "No" 99.9% of the time, like in my case, the evidence is leaning toward an anti-gay God. Also, the claim that anything is possible through Christ isn't true either as I have learned. Sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Technowitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. It's called "Buffet-style Religion"
These folks like to pick and choose which things they want to condemn.

There was a time not long ago when the Bible was used to justify slavery. After all, there are LOTS of passages in there telling the slave to obey his/her master. And rules regarding the kinds of slaves you could own, and how one could 'ethically' sell one's daughter into slavery.

The same sections in Leviticus that go on and on about how men shouldn't lie down with a man as he would with a woman also have tons of stuff about how men should never cut their beards or temple hair. How all should wear tassles on their robes. How the handicapped shouldn't come into the temple, and so on and so on.

One of the details I find funny is there is only ONE reference whatseover to 'deviant' practices on the part of women -- in the letters of Paul, mentioning "unnatural desires" being visited upon the women of Rome as a curse.

There are otherwise ZERO prohibitions on women for Lesbianism. None, nada.

Anyway, the inclusion of the Old Testament is actually contrary to Jesus' words and teachings. He basically said that all those old rules ought to be thrown out. You don't need Ten Commandments if you follow the Golden Rule -- love others, as you would be loved yourself. Follow that one thing, and you get the rest of it, without all the nasty, hateful "vengeful God" junk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
23. this is just a facet of the cancer that has
invaded the christian faith.
it has become poisoned -- the that it's popular and it's followers are behaving despicably i now think is symptomatic.

people are afraid of something -- and i'm not sure they even know what it is.
gay folk are just the scape goat.

boy -- i just gave myself the ''reminds me of pre-war germany'' icks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-01-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
26. I found a fun webpage...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl2.htm

"Bible passages that seem immoral by today's standards."

Including:

2 Kings 2:23-24 (God had a bear eat 42 children because they made fun of Elisha's bald head)

Joshua 7:20-25 (God had Achan's whole family whacked because Achan stole a robe and some gold and silver during the siege of Jericho)

Numbers 31:1-18 (Moses sent a division to Midian. They started the siege of Midian by murdering every adult male. They then murdered the juvenile males in front of their mothers, following that up by murdering the mothers and any other female who was not a virgin. Moses told the division to "keep all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him for yourselves." This is the kind of shit the Nazis pulled.)

1 Chronicles 13:7-11 (Uzza and Ahio were driving a cart containing the Ark of the Covenant, which was a packing crate for the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. The cart hit a bump, Uzza put his hand on the Ark to keep it from falling off, and God whacked him for touching the Ark.)

Genesis 38:6-10 (God whacked Onan for performing coitus interruptus.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-02-05 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Some of my other favorites
Edited on Wed Mar-02-05 09:08 AM by Nimrod
:)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137: 9)

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (2 Kings 18:27)

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12-15)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-02-05 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
30. Things that will get you killed, according to Leviticus 20
1. Worshipping Baal (who here is called Molech); this one gets your whole family killed too.
2. Cursing your mother or father.
3. Committing adultery with another man's wife gets both you and the other man's wife killed. This is a strange one; most Old Testament sins get your whole family taken out, but God won't kill the other man or his kids. Just his wife.
4. Sleeping with your mother will get both you and your mother killed.
5. Sleeping with your daughter-in-law will get both you and your daughter-in-law killed.
//Screwing your mother-in-law falls under Sin Number Three.//
6. Sleeping with another man will get both of you killed, but we already knew that.
7. Sleeping with a woman and her mother gets all three of you burned at the stake.
8. Bestiality gets you killed. Here they're real specific--if a man does this, you must kill the animal and God kills the man, but if a woman does it you have to kill them both.
9. If your sister "sees your nakedness and she yours," both of you get run out of town. Here you don't even need to have sex; just seeing her naked body is enough.
10. Sleeping with your wife while she's on her period, or even seeing her vagina while the period is in progress, gets you both run out of town.
11. Screwing your aunt (if she's one of your parents' sisters) gets you killed, but your aunt is safe.
12. Screwing your aunt (if she married one of your parents' brothers) causes you to "die childless." Apparently God kills all of your kids in front of you, then kills you.
13. Screwing your brother's wife causes both of you to be childless; here you get to watch God kill all your kids but you don't get to die afterwards.

The only thing I can figure out here is that the Israelites were running a regular Roman Orgy and no normal children were being born. Since the infant mortality rate in Biblical times was very high, these laws (which were in place to make the Israelites have sex with their arranged spouses) make sense--all of these banned things cut down on the birth rate. But now we have chlorinated water, garbage pickup and vaccination. We still shouldn't be running around enjoying connubial relations with barnyard sows, but even the hardest-core BT would blanch at the idea of capital punishment for adulterers. Mainly because we'd be completely out of Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-02-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. On number 8,
both a man and a woman would be killed. But a woman only has to 'approach an animal with the intent of having sex'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsMagnificent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. In any event
Jesus came on earth, died for our sins, and literally rewrote the Ten Commandments to Two:

Love the Lord thy God

--and--

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC