Shakey-Lo on 24/1/2007 at 20:28

---

fett, if someone did want to actually read the entire Bible to analyse it for themselves, which version would you recommend? ie. which is most authentic?

Uranium - 235 on 24/1/2007 at 22:20

---

Because he uses satire to poke fun at religion and people buy his books means he's dumber then, say, a guy who posts 'Fuck this, fuck that, and fuck you' on a message board about religion?



You're right. Isn't the part about "Do not lie with a man like you would a woman" somewhere in between "If you pick up sticks on the Sabbath you will get stoned to death" and "You should cut the head off a bull in sacrifice to god"?

I'm pretty sure, having read the Bible, that homosexuality being bad is vaguely mentioned in only a couple places, and the most prominent occurances of which, in Leviticus, is humorously located in a pile of other utterly asinine 'rules' and passages that tell you to partake in behavior that would at the very least land you in jail.

So why exactly do you practice 'Homosexuality is bad', but nothing else in the laughably violent, amoral gospel of Leviticus? Even the most pious Christian would have trouble taking Leviticus seriously.

fett on 24/1/2007 at 23:34

---

I think you're just spewing rhetoric as this point. I have to say that that you don't know what you're talking about if you think Leviticus is a 'gospel' or has anything to do with christianity. It's strictly instructional for priests performing rituals in the temple and doesn't apply to anyone else. If you've read it (as you claim) you'd notice that it says that right in the first few chapters. You get a Zero for retention. It also means you've not been reading the other posts on this page since I've been through this in great detail just a little while ago.

Homosexuality, btw, is mentioned specifically in Leviticus, with a case study in Deuteronomy, as well as commentary by Paul in Romans chapter 1. Christians tend not to keep the 'laughably violent' stuff in Leviticus because a)they are not Hebrew priests, and b) they've actually read the book. Besides that I'm not sure what you're getting at that I didn't answer a few posts ago concerning different sections of the bible being handled as different types of literature and responded to accordingly. I wonder if you've read much at all, to be honest.

It's no surprise you guys can't win debates with christians if your objections are little more than, "OH YAH? WELL THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS SAYS NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN ON HER PERIOD LOLS@!!! THAT'S STUPID', and suchlike. This is all strawman stuff based on your ignorance of the literature. My advice: know your enemy, not what your friends or the TV SAYS about your enemy...

And for George Carlin - he pretty much bitches about everything without knowing what the hell he's talking about because he's a washed up anti-establishment hippie with a lot of complaints but no solutions. Everything I've ever heard him say about religion in general is ignorant, ad hoc, stereotypical god bashing. I can barely stay awake...

jay pettitt on 25/1/2007 at 00:30

---

'you guys' huh? talking of strawmen...

It's a poorly made argument for sure. But I think the problem is trying to debate humanist morality in christian terms. It's a symptom of living and growing up in a society where christianity has traditionally set the moral agenda. Christian morality is unreasonable and backward, the two just don't dovetail nicely.

Better perhaps to know your self than waste time worrying about what your enemy is up to. Not that you are my enemy, what with me being a paid up liberal and all.

Uranium - 235 on 25/1/2007 at 01:15

---

Fett - you say that Leviticus doesn't apply, and then you suggest Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy is just as full of crap as Leviticus.

Romans has the only slight case against homosexuality, but there are so many ways to interpret what was said, especially when you factor in Roman societal feelings about sex, and Pagan 'temple prostitutes', that it could mean anything from outright condemnation of homosexuality (this is the ONLY time in the Bible that lesbians are mentioned), to simply more anti-Pagan crying.

However, no matter how you look at it, it suggests that god made them gay in the first place, and it's preceeded by a few lines that suggest if you can't use 'evidence' to find god, you're just as bad as a gay. Now that's ironic...

I do find it odd, however, that in the entire New Testament, where roughly everything is repeated over and over, only in the presentation to Romans is homosexuality the most clearly 'condemned'. As I mentioned, given the nature of Roman societal acceptance of human sexuality, it sounds to me more like Paul is putting the Romans more on a guilt trip then any actual divine reason behind it.

Anyway, I'm going to move away from talking about the Bible because it seems awfully absurd to argue against religion with what proponents claim is the 'book that proves God exists, because it says he wrote it', or whatever crap. I'm not going to pretend I'm 100% familiar with the Bible but I'm willing to bet I know more then your average Christian does. The fact that this terribly-written work of fiction has so many holes in it already means I really don't even need to try poking more in it.