Roman Catholicism is an unscriptural cult

[glockmail]

Go read my edit... I think YOU should read what the author has to say.... because he sure doesn't support any view of homosexuals as an "abomination" as far as I can see.

BTW... what do you think someone is who sits around describing what HE thinks the bible means?

The author is an atheist, and as such, his views on sin are quite different than mine. That's why I chose that site to reference the 30-some-odd references to homosexuality in the Bible, so you and some biker dude couldn't say that it was a right-wing hack job. Yet y'all still did.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, Cocknail (decided to change it after someone told me that they'd already called you that Crock), what I want you to do is list all 30 references that you claim are in the Bible, and back it up with verses, like I've already done. By the way douchebag, a question that I would like you to answer is how in the hell you can possibly think that an athiest (someone who DOESN'T believe in God), is such an authority on the Bible? You are stupid of the first water dude.

And......another thing.........

Since you like to denigrate homosexuals with your "scholarly blogs", I'd also like to know what you know about a book called "Leviticus". You do know that one right? Did you realize that it was a priestly manual for one small section of the tribes of Israel? They were called the Levites, which is to say, they were the priest class of Israel. And, to hammer that home in your pinhead brain, I'd like to ask what in the hell a Christian is doing, trying to use a book that is most DEFINITELY not theirs?

Oh yeah.....here's the reference......

Leviticus (from Greek Λευιτικός, "relating to the Levites"). In Judaism it is third book of the Torah which are the five books of Moses, it's transliteration is 'Vayikra'. In the Christian bible it is also the third book of what is referred to as the Old Testament.

The Book of Leviticus is often described as a set of legal rules, and priestly rituals, but it actually forms the central core of a larger narrative - the Torah or Pentateuch. More accurately, therefore, Leviticus is about the outworking of God's covenant with Israel, set out in Genesis and Exodus - what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God. These consequences are spelt out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.

The first 16 chapters and the last chapter of the book describe the Priestly Code, detailing ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 17-26 describe the holiness code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). Among its many prohibitions, the book uses the word "abomination" 16 times, including dietary restrictions prohibiting shellfish, certain fowl, and "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination"(chapter 11); and sexual restrictions, prohibiting adultery, incest, and lying "with mankind, as with womankind" (chapter 18, see also chapter 20); the book similarly prohibits eating pork and rabbits because they are "unclean." The rules in Leviticus are generally addressed to the descendants of Israel, except for example the prohibition in chapter 20 against sacrificing children to rival god Molech, which applies equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel", see also proselytes.

According to tradition, Moses authored Leviticus[1] as well as the other four books of the Torah. According to the documentary hypothesis, Leviticus derives almost entirely from the priestly source (P), marked by emphasis on priestly concerns, composed c 550-400 BC, and incorporated into the Torah c 400 BC.

 

[Vintij]

11th commandment Thou shalt not take this seriously. Thats one thing that was left out of the bible.

It is useless to argue about sins in the bible, because what was taboo 2,000 years ago are cultural norms to us today. So literally anything could be called a sin.

Its fine to follow the teachings of Jesus who was a great man and one of the greatest philosophers of all time, but at what point do you accept the fact that nothing in the bible is suppose to be taken literally. Infact, those who take scripture the most literally are always the ones who have misinterpreted the the teachings the most. Dont you find that Ironic? Ex. Muslim extremists, Evangelical bigots,Christian Racists, Catholic child molesting priests, Every Roman Pope from 1095 thru 1291, Martyrs, people who torture themselves to feel jesus pain, Religious groups at war, Masoginists, KKK supremists (They originated as a religious group sorry to inform you)......etc. All of these types of people are scripture literalists, yet have the most coulded and misguided interpretations of the very scripture that they take so seriously.

Why then, are we any different by changing public policy to meet the standards of the same 2,000 year old source. Are we then, choosing to ignore the past and go foward making the same mistakes that these people have made by taking the scripture as real enough to ignore our founders and change our own govenment laws to accomidate to literalists?

The point is, when it comes to policy....the origins of the bible do not matter at all, nor do the interpretations of "sin".

 

[glockmail]

No, Cocknail (decided to change it after someone told me that they'd already called you that Crock), what I want you to do is list all 30 references that you claim are in the Bible, and back it up with verses, like I've already done. By the way douchebag, a question that I would like you to answer is how in the hell you can possibly think that an athiest (someone who DOESN'T believe in God), is such an authority on the Bible? You are stupid of the first water dude.......

Wow you're as long winded as you are clever with the name calling.

The atheist explains his reasoning for stating the biblical references are discussing the sin of homosexuality. Is there a particular one that you disagree with? But first, is this all about my use of the term "many references"? If so you've already admitted to 5, which is "many".

 

[glockmail]

....It is useless to argue about sins in the bible, because what was taboo 2,000 years ago are cultural norms to us today. So literally anything could be called a sin. ......

Oh wow the Lefties view that morality needs to change with the times.

 

[Anguille]

a question that I would like you to answer is how in the hell you can possibly think that an athiest (someone who DOESN'T believe in God), is such an authority on the Bible?

This question was for Cocknail but i'll answer it as you asked it of me. I think an atheist, and outsider and a person with no particular cult agenda, could be an excellent authority on the Bible.

 

[glockmail]

This question was for Cocknail but i'll answer it as you asked it of me. I think an atheist, and outsider and a person with no particular cult agenda, could be an excellent authority on the Bible.

Bingo which is why I use it a lot.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know Cocknail, you're as stupid about the Bible as your avatar showing a Scottish man dressed up like a Muslim.

Bump into things much?

 

[Vintij]

This question was for Cocknail but i'll answer it as you asked it of me. I think an atheist, and outsider and a person with no particular cult agenda, could be an excellent authority on the Bible.

Exactly, its similar to the exact opposite in anthropology where an insiders view might be appreciated more....in this case an ethnocentric view, an Emic perspective or an outsiders view is what makes it less biased.

 

[Vintij]

Oh wow the Lefties view that morality needs to change with the times.

Yes it does, 2,000 years ago.....it was moral to stone your child for mouthing off at the father. So, I think everyone on this board would agree that morality DOES need to change with the rise of intelligence and the end of what many call the dark ages or the religious governed ages. Thank you very much.

 

[glockmail]

You know Cocknail, you're as stupid about the Bible as your avatar showing a Scottish man dressed up like a Muslim.

Bump into things much?

And yet you have been unable to prove me wrong, so have had to resort to sophomoric name calling.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Another place you can see examples of that Vintij, is to look at the way language itself has evolved. I really don't think that speaking gangsta and ebonics existed 2000 years ago.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't have to work much. Most of the Catholic religion is based in lies.

 

[glockmail]

Yes it does, 2,000 years ago.....it was moral to stone your child for mouthing off at the father. So, I think everyone on this board would agree that morality DOES need to change with the rise of intelligence and the end of what many call the dark ages or the religious governed ages. Thank you very much.

We'll I'm looking at about 5 passages that you may be referring to. Which one would you like to discuss?

 

[ABikerSailor]

We'll I'm looking at about 5 passages that you may be referring to. Which one would you like to discuss?

Hey Cocknailed, if those pages and verses that you're staring your blind little beady eyes on are from Leviticus, lemmie ask you one question......

Are you a Levite?

 

[Diuretic]

I've always thought that if you wanted to ensure survival of nomadic tribe in a desert then Leviticus was a brilliant survival guide. I think it probably still is a great survival guide for nomadic tribes in a desert. As for technologically advanced western societies, no, but that shouldn't stop anyone from choosing to comply with its strictures (except stoning someone, if that's in there, haven't read it for a while).

 

[jillian]

I've always thought that if you wanted to ensure survival of nomadic tribe in a desert then Leviticus was a brilliant survival guide. I think it probably still is a great survival guide for nomadic tribes in a desert. As for technologically advanced western societies, no, but that shouldn't stop anyone from choosing to comply with its strictures (except stoning someone, if that's in there, haven't read it for a while).

That was its intended purpose, as far as I can tell. We were a rambunctious people and needed a bit of old school discipline, I suppose.

But I don't think we've stoned anyone in a while... not even for mixing two fibers.

 

[glockmail]

Hey Cocknailed, if those pages and verses that you're staring your blind little beady eyes on are from Leviticus, lemmie ask you one question......

Are you a Levite?

Yes, I've been wearing them since I was in my teens, size 32 squared.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Then you obviously don't know what a Levite is.

 

[Anguille]

Osh Kosh B'Gosh!!