Dear President Bush, please help me with these issues

[Bullypulpit]

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 try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some 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. When I burn a bull on the alter 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?

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. 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?

8. 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?

9. 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/poly 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've 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.

 

[nakedemperor]

Hahahahahaha

Touche, Bully, touche!

YOU'RE the pimp du jour, today :soul:

 

[nakedemperor]

Bully - I was going to give you an award for this post but then realized we didn't have an award for the most assinine post! I will look into it though just for you!

Come oooon.. its fuuuunny :teeth:

 

[no1tovote4]

It's also not very original.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

The original was penned to Dr. Laura.

It has been circulating on the web for some time in both forms.

 

[no1tovote4]

And now a Buddhist raised in a Pentacostal household will provide your answer.

Yahweh created a new covenant with the new sacrifice of his Son, it negated and made the old laws void while creating a new law.

You can find it several different places but here is one in Hebrews Chapter 8:8-15.


8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The italics are mine they stress the part that negates the old, the new law taught in the New Testament is the binding law written in the hearts of man according to the Christian's holy book, The Holy Bible.

 

[Merlin1047]

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 try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some 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? (It is not illegal to own Canadians, it is merely impractical. It takes too long to wean them off their diet of whale blubber and caribou.)

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? (Send a picture. I'll have to reference the NASA book (National Association of Slave Auctioneers). But I can't promise you much. She would depreciate a great deal if word got out that you're her daddy.)

3. When I burn a bull on the alter 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? (Bully - you burn quite a bit of bull - and no animal is ever involved. If your neighbors object to the odor - try showering a little more often.)

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? (Well, that's up to you. If your neighbor voted for kerry, by all means kill the bastard.)

5. 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? (Yes. There are degrees. You're at the top of the list. But to answer your question - you can resolve the conflict by finding a homosexual who has a shellfish allergy and feeding him oysters.)

6. 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? (No. The prohibition is on a defect in vision, not in sight. Liberals don't know the difference.)

7. 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? (Why are you lying? I know damn well you're a freakin' hippie - and so are your friends.)

8. 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? (Yes. But wear gloves when you go out on a date too. I've seen some of the girls you go out with.)

9. 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/poly 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)? (Your uncle is in deep shit because the two crops he's planting are poppies and marijuana.)

I know you've studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. (Listen, I hope I've helped you out here. I wouldn't want to give you any bad advice.)

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(Don't mention it.)

.

 

[Semper Fi]

Good call, Merlin, good call. As for Bullybullshit, take your witch-goddess' advice and shove it!

 

[nakedemperor]

I agree! but I would bet ya a finski that Bully is dead serious!

No bet =)

What's a finski?

 

[musicman]

No bet =)

What's a finski?

To which the nun replied, "Twenty-five, just like downtown.....". Oops, sorry - right answer, wrong question.

Finski: AKA fin, fiver, Abie...

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

All I have to say is....

Good catch no1tovotefor.

Anyone wanting to circulate something regarding the Bible should crack one open.

Anyone wanting to circulate something regarding the Bible should know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament and know why there is an old and new.

I thought a "finski" was a five, but I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And now a Buddhist raised in a Pentacostal household will provide your answer.

Yahweh created a new covenant with the new sacrifice of his Son, it negated and made the old laws void while creating a new law.

You can find it several different places but here is one in Hebrews Chapter 8:8-15.


8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. <b>12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.</b> 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The italics are mine they stress the part that negates the old, the new law taught in the New Testament is the binding law written in the hearts of man according to the Christian's holy book, The Holy Bible.

Unfortunately, the religious right-wing nuts seem to ignore that part of the New Testament. But more to the point, religions in general have more than their share of silliness, mean-spiritedness, ignorance and general cussedness to ever be taken as seriously as so many people take them. While some of their moral observations are relevant, many are not and thus their moral pronouncements should be regarded, not as absolute rules of moral behavior, but rather as guideposts to point us in the proper direction. We should keep that which is good and useful and beneficial while discarding that which is harmful and useless.

 

[Bullypulpit]

.

ROFLMAO! That was a hoot Merlin! Good job!

 

[Bullypulpit]

As for Bullybullshit, take your witch-goddess' advice and shove it!

Just whatinthehell are you talking about?

 

[musicman]

.


I thought a "finski" was a five, but I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.

That's my understanding too, Jimmy, although I used every bit of slang I could think of....except:

I wonder how many Arkansas madams knew their illustrious ex-governer by the nickname, "Five-dollar Bill". What with his taste in women.....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Come oooon.. its fuuuunny :teeth:

It sucked. It's based on a lot of wrong premises. That's just not funny.

 

[Merlin1047]

It sucked. It's based on a lot of wrong premises. That's just not funny.

I guess funny depends on your perspective. I got a giggle out of it. Some things are not meant to be taken seriously. It helps to know the difference.

 

[Mariner]

Care to elaborate? I can appreciate that a Christian might find the humorous tone of the piece offensive, but it makes a pretty clear basic point: when fundamentalist Christians turn to a literal reading of the Bible to justify their positions on certain issues (e.g. homosexuality), they are cherry-picking the Bible. Unless you take the (novel) position of No1ToVote4, that parts of the Bible supersede other parts, like evolving legislation, then perhaps literal readings of the Bible should be used with care. Literal readings of most religions' holy texts would have the same problem. The answer, to me, is to take the Bible figuratively, as a superb personal moral guide--perhaps the best ever--but not the answer on direct questions of science, public policy, or history.

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

Care to elaborate? I can appreciate that a Christian might find the humorous tone of the piece offensive, but it makes a pretty clear basic point: when fundamentalist Christians turn to a literal reading of the Bible to justify their positions on certain issues (e.g. homosexuality), they are cherry-picking the Bible. Unless you take the (novel) position of No1ToVote4, that parts of the Bible supersede other parts, like evolving legislation, then perhaps literal readings of the Bible should be used with care. Literal readings of most religions' holy texts would have the same problem. The answer, to me, is to take the Bible figuratively, as a superb personal moral guide--perhaps the best ever--but not the answer on direct questions of science, public policy, or history.

Mariner.

You're missing the point, Mariner. No1tovote4 is quite right - the New Testament is the FULFILLMENT of the Old - it is the new law. "Evolving legislation" is a novel way to put it, but that's basically about the size of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unfortunately, the religious right-wing nuts seem to ignore that part of the New Testament. But more to the point, religions in general have more than their share of silliness, mean-spiritedness, ignorance and general cussedness to ever be taken as seriously as so many people take them. While some of their moral observations are relevant, many are not and thus their moral pronouncements should be regarded, not as absolute rules of moral behavior, but rather as guideposts to point us in the proper direction. We should keep that which is good and useful and beneficial while discarding that which is harmful and useless.

Why is it religious bigots like you seem to think you're so much better than everyone else and hence your opinion of what we believe is correct while our opinion of what we believe is not? Ill never understand people who generalize and hate like you do for no real reason.

No "religious right-wing nuts" ignore that part of the new testament. you see in order for the Lord to be merciful to the unrighteous so that He will will remember them no more, one has to enter into the new and everlasting covenant with him. This covenant cannot be entered into except on condition of faith in Christ and repentance which allows the sinner to be born again a new creature of righteousness in Christ through the water and the Spirit.

So as I said no "religious right-wing nuts" ignore that part of the new testament, Disciples of Christ simply keep it in context and realize that repentance is impossible while we remain in our sins. You cant continue repeating the same sin over and over without trying to stop and claim you are repenting. If you claim that than you are making mockery of the Atonement because you are crucifying Christ afresh. Because Christ did not come to save us in our sins, but to save us from our sins.

Discipleship requires discipline. and attribute that is lacking with many people in modern times. It also requires humility and and open mind. Two attributes you neither have nor have shown any desire to have.

 

[Mariner]

thanks for the clarification. Not being a Christian, I never knew that about the relation between the New and Old Testaments. In that case, the spoof is rather unfair to Christians--except if they use parts of the Old Testament in support of certain positions, but not others.

I hope no one thinks I'm a religious bigot, especially my wife--who's Christian and takes our daughter to church every Sunday.

Mariner.