Dear President Bush

D

dilla_says_go

Active member
i got this in an email. its funny.



Dear President Bush,

Thank you 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 and 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.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how 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 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 (Lev.15: 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 (Lev.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 (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. 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?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes meunclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. 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 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.



..:: d a n c e y o u f u c k e r s ! ::..
 
haha, thats sweet, and the questions are funny!

'what?' Lauren every time you ask her a question for the first time!

skiing what i thought this was a porn site and every one i was talking to were sexy ppl ..i thought skiing was a sex term we all uesed. damn!-twintiprider

 
Jibtech posted this already, but it is pretty damn funny.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
Yeah I think those are from the Old Testament (sp?) My friend who is fairly religious thinks the Old Testament is bullshit.

We pay our debt sometimes.
 
from talking to my roomate (very christian), as he explained it, the old testament was what was applied before christ died for our sins. christians believe that after that, the new testament is what is now aplicable. However, judaism (jewish people) still believe in the old testament.

I don't know if those are form the new or old testament, but my guess is the old. HOwever funny it is, unless you are of the jewish religion, the old testament doesn't apply, and therefore these don't mean jack shit.

however, if these are from the new testament, then this is applicable.

just my two cents.

-Pat
 
leviticus is the 3rd book in the old testament, so those laws were created back in the day for hebrews. they do not have any bearing on christianity today. in fact, the only significance of the old testament to christians is that it contains the prophecies which the new testament, mostly just the life of jesus, fufill, and that it has relevant history as far as christianity goes.

so the author of that email is a little bit mislead...

-Joel

'joel...has curly hair..

its hard not to stare.

he's tall too...he's like, way up there.

this poem sucked, but i don't care!'

-lucyford

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~

Capital City Rider

Dragons Lair

lanky steeze
 
Lev. is old testament. The point is that Lev. is what is most often cited to 'prove' that God is fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. These are from the same book. That was the point.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
the best episode of the west wing had the president saying pretty much every one of those things to an ann coulter-like character...such good points

i ski for Head
 
very good point. Here's a summary I have found while looking into it further.

Summary of 'The New Testament and Homosexuality'

By Robin Scroggs, professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, a happily married heterosexual who has been acclaimed in many Christian publications for his serious research about what the New Testament really says about homosexuality.

Scroggs reason for his research was a discussion of homosexuality by ministers. 'I sat amazed as I heard the Bible being invoked in ways that were wholly inappropriate to any canons of biblical scholarship. Perhaps something snapped in me...for better or worse I decided somebody needed to provide resources that would give both clarity and honesty.' He says he has no personal interest but sees the tragic results of false biblical scholarship and the tragic rejections of homosexuals in the name of Christian righteousness or even love. It is about time someone spoke honestly about the issue, not just from emotional homophobic assumptions of what the New Testament really says.

Conclusions:

1. The NT church was not very concerned about homosexuality as a problem, All three instances referring to homosexuality are from preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. No single NT author considers the issue important enough to write his own sentence about it! The argument 'against nature' is the most common form of attack on pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. It says nothing about today's loving homosexual relationships. Even in Romans 1, where Paul integrates the illustration of homosexuality into his larger theological arguments, there is no advance beyond idolatry and pagan vices of 1 Cor 6:9.

2. Female homosexuality gets even less attention appearing only in Romans 1, and here with less emphasis than male homosexuality. This is doubtlessly because little was said in the Greco-Roman world about lesbianism, and because in OT law no penalties attached to such female practices. This again suggest pederasty was the vice, not homosexuality in general. In Romans 1 Paul's language 'about male homosexuality, must have had, could only have had, pederasty in mind.'

3. The two vice lists attack very specific forms of pederasty, not homosexuality in general.

Scroggs concludes: 'The basic model of today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgements against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate.. should in no way be a weapon to justify refusal of ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved'. He concludes with more discussion that pederasty was the issue of the biblical texts, not today's homosexual relationships.

source

-Pat
 
from a logical standpoint, it doesnt make sense to defend the standpoint of christianity, or more specifically to identify homosexuality as a sin, by using the old testament. when someone says 'well look at the book of leviticus', they are definitely not correctly using the bible.

however, there are applicable new testament verses that preach that the act of homosexuality is a sin, and even though i read what you posted melvs, i chose to discard it as an inaccurate interpretation of these verses.

so the next time bush uses leviticus to defend his viewpoint, yes, you all have a right to call him a moron. but if he uses a new testament book, it is a different story.

-Joel

'joel...has curly hair..

its hard not to stare.

he's tall too...he's like, way up there.

this poem sucked, but i don't care!'

-lucyford

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~

Capital City Rider

Dragons Lair

lanky steeze
 
do you know the specific verses of the NT that site this? I'm just curious because I can't find a listing of the specific ones (as I was able to find for th old testament)

-Pat
 
ill try and look for you, i dont know them off the top of my head though.

-Joel

'joel...has curly hair..

its hard not to stare.

he's tall too...he's like, way up there.

this poem sucked, but i don't care!'

-lucyford

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~

Capital City Rider

Dragons Lair

lanky steeze
 
Interesting you should quote 1 Cor, Freezy... I read this a while ago.

''In 1 COR 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not

inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the

immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves,

the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual

perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible

that the juxtaposition of 'malakos', the soft, effeminate

word, with 'arsenokoitus', or male prostitute, was meant

to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual

liaison.

Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of

homosexual behaviour. But was Paul's opinion about

homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack

of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by

prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of

Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer

this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic

attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was

not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be

veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been

challenged and transcended even by the church! Is

Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than

some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned

ideas?

Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy,

Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of

male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing

examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of

unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter

respectively).

That is all that Scripture has to say about

homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist,

these references do not build an ironclad case for

condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there

is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of

ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to

be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition

toward those of their own sex.''

-Bishop John S Spong, Episcopal.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
That's a good point...one that I agree with in terms of the biblical reasoning for anti-homosexually being false. However, I don't think you can claim that a person is born gay. There haven't been conclusive studies by any respectable institutions to prove this. In fact, in Singapore, where the male to female ratio is extremely high, the instance of homosexuality is greater than in areas where the male and female ratio is low or even. I think it has something to do with behavioral development and the enviroment.

i ski for Head
 
Slightly off topic, but I'm hindu. How or why does any of this apply to me?

- - - - -

'It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
what's the f****? it's the ancient testament. Christians trust the new one!

*******************

PUNK'S NOT DEAD!

RAILS SUCK!

POWDER SKIING RULES!

DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!

VOTE BUSH!!
 
^what?

-joe

________________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if you didn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

P.O.S.E.R.S CREW

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

THIS HTML IS SO HOT RIGHT NOW!!!
 
rob, I don't think homosexuality is unnatrual either. In nature, you do occasionally see it happen with other species. I don't think there is any way to determine if something or someone is born gay either. I don't really know, I just know that it's not something I think should be frowned on by people.

-Pat
 
America = Originated for separation of the church and the state...

Bush = Contradicting that, isn't he?

Sarah

Reppin' 907

'what's wrong with princess. I wish I was a princess'

-Jay (rebel)

 
I might be wrong on this one, 'cause like I said, I'm Hindu and not Christian, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wasn't a Repulican.

- - - - -

'It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.' - Anne Frank
 
leviticus is the old testament and some of those things are just from a different era

__________________

'Your opinions are like kittens; always giving them away.'
 
'America = Originated for separation of the church and the state...

Bush = Contradicting that, isn't he?'

nope. call me when he organizes the church of america, or when he mandates that all citizens of this nation are to be practising protestants. then youll have a point.

Mercy's eyes are blue

When she places them in front of you

Nothing holds a roman candle to

The solemn warmth you feel inside

 
wow, this is a realy realy good thread, and all of you bring up quite good points, the way that i believe that america, i.e. the govenment should look at this is, if people want to be gay, let them be gay, its not a matter for the state to decide for the people. as long as they are not trying to physicaly force their gayness on any one else, i dont see the problem with it. people will protest, yes but is it realy hurting anything. i admit that i am not highly religious, i go to curch about once a month, but i believe that things like homosexuality should be up to an indavidual to decide, if a person is highly religious, then if there religon says it is not ok to be gay then they wont be. but if it does and they do decide that they want to be gay , then i do not see a problem with that.

'what?' Lauren every time you ask her a question for the first time!

skiing what i thought this was a porn site and every one i was talking to were sexy ppl ..i thought skiing was a sex term we all uesed. damn!-twintiprider

 
just because homosexuality happens in nature doesnt make it natural!

Jesus saves!

Gretzky gets the rebound. he feeds the puck to LeClair. he shoots! he scores! the crowd goes wild
 
nat·u·ral Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)

adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

-Pat
 
'nope. call me when he organizes the church of america, or when he mandates that all citizens of this nation are to be practising protestants. then youll have a point.'

-anewmorning

Good point. That's why I slapped that question mark on the end. Personally, I think he should stick to doing his presidential duties instead of preaching, but then again, that's not for me to decide.

Sarah

Reppin' 907

'what's wrong with princess. I wish I was a princess'

-Jay (rebel)

 
Well done, Melvs.

Sarah

Reppin' 907

'what's wrong with princess. I wish I was a princess'

-Jay (rebel)

 
i agree sdot, i think he focuses on it to much when he could be spending time on more important things.

'what?' Lauren every time you ask her a question for the first time!

skiing what i thought this was a porn site and every one i was talking to were sexy ppl ..i thought skiing was a sex term we all uesed. damn!-twintiprider

 
Here's an interesting fact I overheard a while ago during the election. Appearently Bush had changed religions 3 times. He started out as Baptist, then became Methodist, and now he's Evangelistic.

I wish i could give you a good web source for it, but I saw it on CNN TV during one of their political programs.

Apearrently Bush can be a flip-flopper too. Not to say that Kerry isn't. Maybe Bush isn't as firm on his religious beliefs as he makes people think.

Just an interesting bit of info i thought i'd throw out on the table.

Broken legs suck balls
 
^ You don't even know what you are saying. Evangelistic is descriptive, it is not a noun.

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
sorry but the rest of your post was ludicrous also, my bad for just singling out that one part, it was all ignorant

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
'WASHINGTON, DC: A new book by Marvin Olasky, a longtime advisor to Texas Governor and GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush, clearly articulates the way Governor Bush and his advisor intend to tear down the wall separating church and state.'
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush19.html

Hmm, I should like to read this book.

Sarah

Reppin' 907

'what's wrong with princess. I wish I was a princess'

-Jay (rebel)

 
I'm aware that Evangelistic is not an 'official' religion. But since the Methodist church doesn't support him anymore, Evangelistic is the religious direction he's taken.

Broken legs suck balls
 
dude, its all the same, the word is denomination not religion. Think son. There aren't to many differences between them, people bounce around between them all the time. It would be one thing if he was Catholic and became Protestant, but this is a real non issue

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
lol what an idiot, bush is non demoninational from what i know.....an d the old testement i think is more non applicable to christians because it speaks of a cold self conscious unforgiving God, where as God is portrayed as a loving, caring, forgiving,(much like the best friend anyone could have) God

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

KNUCK IF YOU BUCK BWYA

'Answer: Your temp visa expiried and you were condemned to a meaningless life eating snakes with all the bushnecks in the outback' - iceiscary on why aussiepimp hates america
 
very funny. i liked it even though i am a bush supporter

///////////////////

this way is a waterslide away for me to chase her fuller every day

 
halarious. i am sick of politicians using religion, especially christiantiy, which i believe in, to justify their points. the bible can be interperted many different ways, starting with the translation. after that, you have all the hidden meanings to consider, and the fact that people have cut out parts of the bible over time. a very good personal reference to what god wants me to do(within reason), but not a justification for murder or perventing gays from marrying or owning slaves

depending on my mood, you might get a nice thoughtful responce that might make sense, or you might get complete jibberish that is not wise to even read. good luck

'do or do not. there is no try.'-yoda

in anceint times, people tied up a goat in the the town square and blamed it for all their problems. then they killed it, and thats where we get scapegoat from
 
B-Wald. I am an agnostic (I believe in a higher power, but not God as such or in a certain religion) and I firmly believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Not necissarily immoral, but in the sense that at its VERY basics, human nature is supposed to advance the species, with reproduction being the most important way to do so. Being that homosexuals have no intention to copulate, they are going against the natural programming of all living species. Therefore, they are abberant and before civilization would have died out and left the gene pool.

President Bush is a Christian, and most Christian faiths depend far heavier on the New Testaments than the Old to govern their lives. Most people do not take it literally either, I know there are a lot of nutballs out there, but most of the Christians I know take the Bible very loosly as a guide to be a better person. You cannot take things written thousands of years ago that were relayed through several generations of different people before being recorded literally, theres all sorts of accounts of crazy demons and magic and insanity in the bible, that alone should tell you something. However, I don't believe that Bush should be critisized for being somewhat religious, I don't see him forcing it down your throat as some of you would wish to believe. Kerry is a devout Catholic, and is almost as stout in his beliefs as Bush is. At least the man has some sort of moral backround.

-Andy

---ppp---
 
we will make you be christians by the word or by the sword ...

you're not christian? cool! i don't care. it 's not me who will burn in hell forever

*******************

PUNK'S NOT DEAD!

RAILS SUCK!

POWDER SKIING RULES!

DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!

VOTE BUSH!!
 
''I am an agnostic (I believe in a higher power, but not God as such or in a certain religion) and I firmly believe that homosexuality is unnatural.''

Andy, whatever you might have said to me in the past week aside, this is downright offensive, not just to my sense of right and wrong, but to watever sensibility I possess. You're not even indoctrinated, and yet you believe in, esssentially, a discrimination against a group of people on an arbitrary basis. Let me explain what natural means to you. OED here, I've posted it before, but EVERY TIME threads like these come up, someone forgets or ignores it.

Definitions of ''Natural''

1. Part of existence; contrast between the natural and the supernatural

-Moral and immoral acts are natural, by this definition. Not relevant.

2. The natural world excluding humanity

-In this case, Homosexuality is unnatural, but so is the alternative.

3.That which is Normal

-Leads to mean commonly accepted, which doesn't mean 'right'.

-Homosexuals aren't the majority, but are common throughout history.

4. Having to do with the physical world

-Distinction between the physical and the mental

-Not particularly relevant

5. Present or existing from birth

-ie: natural hair colour

-Evidence states that this is the case with homosexuality.

6. That which works

-Pragmatic definition; does it function

-Procreation comes into play

-However, by this token, sex must be unnatural in any way that does not produce children.

-Procreation is not the only function of sex. If pleasure is justifiable, then it should be so in all cases.

7. That towards which we are inclined

-Not relevant, we are inclined towards both moral and immoral acts

8. Conformity with the laws of nature (Ie: gravity, etc.)

-No laws of nature are broken through homosexuality, but the same is true of all immoral acts; therefore not relevant.

I honestly didn't have any real issue with you as a person before this, but I have to say I'm extremely disappointed. I hope that at some point you're able to reflect on your position and improve yourself a bit, because unlike many of the people who share your prejudice, you're far from an unenlightened person in other areas.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
I hate to say it JD, but the view andy has on this subject, and the reasons he gives, make sense. It's the only decent non-religious argument I've heard (from many people too), about how it goes against human nature in the sense that homosexuals themselvs cannot reprodouce. At this basic level, it is a valid argument.

However, if you look at it more realistically, if you are offended because homoesexual marriages would be unable to reproduce, there are couples who adopt and raise children who are in need of a good home, and there are some (lesbian couples) who will actually have one become inpregnated. So looking at it in this say, the argument somewhat fizzles out. I agree, it goes about human nature reproductivly speaking, but in all reality, that won't hurt anything.

-Pat
 
^The argument is ostensibly reasonabe, but once you realize that EVERYONE who has no intention of creating children is to be considered 'unnatural', it hits a huge snag and is revealed as a discriminatory argument.If, for example, a man was sterile from an accident or even a birth defect, would he suddenly be an unnatural creature? The allegation that sexual practice exists solely for the purpose of procreation implies that any sexual contact that cannot or is not intended to result in the creation of 'new life' is unnatural. It is, in my view, a much more dangerous point of view to hold than an 'I believe in the bible' perspective.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
Ugh. I never said it was immoral, in fact I went ahead and said in my post that I didn't believe that it was. I don't have a problem with gay people, they can do what they want, and I actually have a couple friends that are in fact gay. However, it is unnatural, yes, sex for pleasure is unnatural, however, I don't see anything morally WRONG with it. I knew somebody was going to freak out about my post and read other things into it. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition, abnormal in the fact that its not of the norm, its not present in the majority of people. I actually believe in gay marriage if it makes you feel any better. But hey, if you're offended because you like to stick your dick in some guys ass then be offended, I could care less. This is my belief and the fucking world is a bunch of politically correct assholes who DONT WANT TO HURT OTHER PEOPLES FEELINGS.

-Andy

---ppp---
 
Sigh... how did I know you weren't going to backpedal at all. No one ever does. Whatever, now we're arguing semantics, but if abnormal equals not part of the majority viewpoint equals unnatural, then enjoying skiing is unnatural. I don't know, you could go through quite a few reductio-ad-absudum arguments there, but as you're not likely to alter your position in any case, I won't bother. As for PC, I generally hate it with a passion, except where it's necessary; where there is a noticeable amount intolerance. I see a lot of that towards gay people (not around where I live but certainly on this site), and, as a result, I go a bit gung-ho on it. At some point, hopefully, people will stop being assholes, and it won't be necessary anymore, just as it's hardly necessary to be massively uptight about women's rights these days.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top