Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[Ajani]

Really?!

Interesting. I did not know that. That, I did not know.



Maybe the editors and the project developers felt that 30 years of cabinetry making would create a drag in the middle when the feature length film was later made.



Says you.

Frankly I like a good stoning in the spring...

Hey, no one here is on their second marriage, eh? Or maybe has a spouse that did a lil' somethin'-somethin' before betrothal?

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die-Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Good thing we've got some Parent-Of-The-Year award winners...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Uh oh...remember the Bush and Obama threads? Yeah...that's a problem...

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.--1 Kings 21:10

UUggg...Adultery bad...rape victims too...

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.--Deuteronomy 22:23-24

My Grandmother told me that there was a passage in the bible that says, "It is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore, than to spill it on the ground." So, I tried both and the bible's right! It's way better. That's one of the reasons they call it the good book. I'd imagine a lot of you are worried about that one.

And, hey, speaking of that...

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. --Mark 9:43

Any adopted kids? From another marriage? Unholy unions?...better leave the kids at home

One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord--Deuteronomy 23:2

And, do God a favor...shut that ***** up...

Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says--1 Corinthians 14:34

I've noticed as women get older, especially after marriage, they tend to opt for convenience of style in the grooming department but if your female septagenarian doesn't look like Saruman you'd better bind her feet.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering--1 Corinthians 11:13-15

It's a good thing everyone around here has their houses in order or we'd need some relief pitchers.


By the way, most of these particular inserts were culled from a Google search of "Arbitrary Scripture". The rest were from a search for "Fat Hypocrite"

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is...

I assume when you said "Really?!

Interesting. I did not know that. That, I did not know."

was just sarcasm, since most of us read "The King James Version" of the Bible - which straight up tells anyone that it is a version and hence has been edited by someone (whether King James himself or more likely the particular scholars at the time)...

As for my last part about Jews not taking it all literally: I have a Bible, Quran and Torah that I used to read for comparison of the texts... The Torah began with a narrative from a Rabbi explaining that it is not a book of history, measurement or geography and essentially that the books are not meant to be interpreted literally... I assure you that no similar narrative was in either the Bible or the Quran.

[bobsticks]

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is....

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

[Ajani]

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

Well said...

[Feanor]

...

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

[bobsticks]

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

Bottom line is, if you're gonna Talk the Talk, you have to Walk the Walk. You can't preach it one way and live it another. That goes for everyone if you believe in it. You can't turn the other cheek for some and not others.

[Feanor]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.

I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.

The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

[Feanor]

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.
...

So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.

...
I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.
...

To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?

...
The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

[GMichael]

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

Not me. I've given up trying to make myself a better person. I just strive not to get any worse.

Everyone else is who they are. I don't try to change them. That only gets them upset.